Open thread weekend

Posted on November 2, 2013 by | 291 Comments

by Judith Curry

It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.

This entry was posted in Open thread. Bookmark the permalink.

291 responses to “Open thread weekend”

  1. R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 4:40 pm |

    Let’s talk about this chart:

    http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/gisp2-apica.gif

    What’s your memeplex say?

    • ordvic | November 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm |

      That’s a cool chart!

      memeplex says: Get the banks to lend money for a resort casino, a boardwalk, and a pier with a ferris wheel on it in Greenland. easy to sell time shares for a quick return. That chart is a gold mine.

    • Ragnaar | November 2, 2013 at 5:01 pm |

      Location, location. Check out NW Passage real estate.

    • Ted Clayton | November 2, 2013 at 5:21 pm |

      Let’s talk about this chart:

      Who made it?

      What data is it based on?

      What processing was applied?
      ====

      It certainly looks ‘interesting’. How long did the data have to spend in Guantanamo?

      • Ted Clayton | November 2, 2013 at 5:48 pm |

        Ah – the left hand Y axis is labeled:

        Air temperature (Deg. C) at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet

        So the question is, ‘How good a global proxy is the ‘summit’ of Greenland? Using how many cores? One?

    • Mike Jonas | November 2, 2013 at 5:21 pm |

      It looks like a repeating pattern, ie. more of the same, a spike tending to come up about on the thousand-year mark. But it breaks one of the ‘rules’ – it splices a high-resolution segment (the red dashed bit) onto a low-resolution graph (the blue bit). The two are not properly comparable and should not be shown spliced like that. There is no way of knowing what short term variations might have occurred in the past that are not detectable, not shown.

      • Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 10:57 pm |

        Mike Jonas,

        +1. It’s amazing how many climate scientists don’t know that. Australian climate scientist (geologist) Andrew Glikson, frequently argunes that the climate is warming faster than ever before and gives as evidence the rate of warming over recent decades and compares those rates with estimated rates of warming over thousands of years during the PETM.

    • Steven Mosher | November 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm |

      hmm.
      I say our knowledge of the past ( pre 1850) is way more uncertain than our knowledge of the modern period. Way more uncertain in spatial terms, way more uncertain in temporal terms, and way more uncertain in magnitudes.

      Such that…..

      no evidence from the past can ever topple our understanding of the modern period: Its getting warmer and C02 dunnit.

      hehe.

      • Tonyb | November 2, 2013 at 5:42 pm |

        Mosh

        So presumably BEST will henceforth revert to a post 1850 data base and you will have one for the NH from that date and another that is global starting around 1900?

        Tonyb

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 5:45 pm |

        Steve Mosher’s memeplex spouted: “Its getting warmer and C02 dunnit.”
        ___
        Doesn’t mean it ain’t true, BTW. (spouts my snarky memeplex in reply).

      • Bad Andrew | November 2, 2013 at 6:45 pm |

        “Its getting warmer and C02 dunnit”

        Actually its getting colder here. The sun is going down.

        Andrew

      • GarryD | November 2, 2013 at 6:45 pm |

        Steve,
        Not sure why this comment prompted the “hehe” from you?

        As you know, Leif Svalgaard states and carefully supports the statement “We are not warming. We are slowly cooling inching along to the next glaciation”. Where do we go from there?

        Leif keeps pointing out that “cherry picking” is a tactic of someone with an agenda? You likely do the extra work (BEST, etc.) because you like to be knowledgeable. It seems that the best way to influence the climate discussion is never overlook the observables. Most people agree with you that mankind is impacting the environment.

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 2, 2013 at 8:41 pm |

        GarryD,
        Leif Svalgaard was likely referring to the underlying trend.

        You must realize that when you quote something Google allows us to fact-check what you quoted.

        “albertalad says:
        October 31, 2013 at 2:59 pm
        lThe essence of my thought, whether right or wrong, was of course we were warming after these periods.
        We are not warming. We are slowly cooling inching along to the next glaciation.
        ”

        The long term trend is to cooling, and what we are seeing in the CO2 control knob is a forcing that is compensating for this cooling and then reversing the trend toward warming.

      • Steven Mosher | November 2, 2013 at 9:01 pm |

        Gary
        “Steve,
        Not sure why this comment prompted the “hehe” from you?”

        you could ask or speculate.

        “As you know, Leif Svalgaard states and carefully supports the statement “We are not warming. We are slowly cooling inching along to the next glaciation”. Where do we go from there?”

        1. Leif isnt addressing what I am saying. We will know that it has stopped
        warming when sea levels stop rising. The air temperature is not the only metric, in fact its the worst. precisely BECAUSE it leads people to believe
        that warming has stopped.

        “Leif keeps pointing out that “cherry picking” is a tactic of someone with an agenda? ”

        Precisely, which is WHY you dont only look at air temps. its why you look at all metrics. easy peasy.

      • Steven Mosher | November 2, 2013 at 9:13 pm |

        ‘So presumably BEST will henceforth revert to a post 1850 data base and you will have one for the NH from that date and another that is global starting around 1900?

        ###########

        huh?

        you miss the point. the point isnt what data you look at. The point is
        how much weight do you assign to it.

        in 1850 we discover the effects of C02. Since then science has built on that discovery. That science is working physics.

        With regards to observations, we have a good geographical coverage from 1850 on. Before that, coverage is sparse. europe and nnorth eastern US.

        As we go back in time we have fewer and fewer locations
        we have lower temporal resolution.. in the modern period we have global coverage by the second,, going back in time.. by the hour… then by the day, then by the month, then by the year, decade etc

        And as we go back in time — today we have thermometers as proxies of temp– going back– trees, verbal reports, sediments, isotopes,…

        So, my contention: There is no historical fact prior to 1850 that can upset what the science of the last 150 years says, BECAUSE it is always more likely that the historical fact or reconstruction is wrong than it is that the modern science will be wrong.

        Like if somebody told me a story about a guy who walked on water way back when.

        on the probabilities, on deciding which is more likely to be mistaken it is always the case that modern science will be correct more often than not.

        let’s see how people argue about this. And note Im making a GENERAL CASE, forget that its about climate science.

        If we have a piece of historical data or a reconstruction of historical data that conflicts with modern science. we are fully justified in disregarding the guy walking on water.

      • Herman Alexander Pope | November 3, 2013 at 9:26 am |

        BECAUSE it is always more likely that the historical fact or reconstruction is wrong than it is that the modern science will be wrong.

        Now that they have super computers, they can get things wrong much faster and they believe what comes out of their computers and they have quit thinking. Historical Data has been compared to Historical records. People wrote about conditions. Modern science has not yet been tested and not yet proven to be skillful.

      • angech | November 3, 2013 at 9:31 am |

        Steve Moshe,
        r how many degrees centigrade for each unit of CO2 increase [sorry to do atmospheric but sea level measurement is a bit , you know, doubtful]. Is it true that CO2 is supersaturated and the effect of increasing Co2 is less as it gets higher?
        If the heat increase makes more cloud cover, possible , and this reflects more heat back then it might be that increasing CO2 in a water world such as ours, is self regulating and it may be impossible to increase the temperature of the world more than a few degrees ever, no matter how high CO2 goes, as is happening now an as has happened in the past.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 9:48 am |

        Mosh

        I thought you would recognise that I did have my tongue firmly in cheek, but since you have responded it would appear you are back pedalling somewhat now.

        Here is what you said;

        ‘I say our knowledge of the past ( pre 1850) is way more uncertain than our knowledge of the modern period. Way more uncertain in spatial terms, way more uncertain in temporal terms, and way more uncertain in magnitudes.’

        If something is out by orders of magnitudes surely it should not be promoted as any sort of reliable guide as to what happened globally prior to 1850?

        You are in effect making my tongue in cheek point that BEST should actually be a post 1850 data base, and in taking the orders of magnitude and limited information meme to its logical conclusion, the Global record should start around 1900 or even later when sufficient SH records can be factored in.
        tonyb

      • Teddi | November 3, 2013 at 9:57 am |

        You’re right Mosher – it’s exactly how we landed in the mess and your “Co2 dunnit” fairyland – by ignoring the past. Such as numerous periods of higher Co2 concentrations and higher temps…

      • David Springer | November 3, 2013 at 11:15 am |

        It hasn’t gotten any warmer for past 17 years despite huge increase in CO2 during that time.

        hehe

      • Jim D | November 3, 2013 at 11:28 am |

        …well, the ocean heat content has, but we won’t mention that.

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 3, 2013 at 12:54 pm |

        The SOI has been in a cooling index range the last 17 years.

        The following plot shows the fluctuation residuals from my CSALT model:
        http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2513/omf.gif

        Note how the SOI signal has fluctuated in a downward trend since a strong peak in 1998. This is what in engineering is called a compensating factor and it serves to mask the upward trend in temperatures caused by the increasing CO2 GHG levels.

        The SOI has clearly worked as an explanatory variable for pauses and fluctuations over the last 130+ years and should continue to do so in the future. The fact remains that the SOI has always bounced around a zero mean and elementary gas-law physics can show that any downward trend can not sustain long term.

        Skeptics and deniers are Noise Riders and tend to at most consider a “dead reckoning” model for extrapolating future trends. This method works for certain physical problems but obviously not for everything.

      • Mickey Reno | November 3, 2013 at 7:43 pm |

        Steven Mosher writes:

        We will know that it has stopped warming when sea levels stop rising.

        Why? What if there is some level of warming, warmer than the globe is now (averagely speaking) which makes more snow fall on Antarctica, but not so warm as to allow the ice sheet to melt, causing sea levels to fall via more sequestration than is offset due to thermal expansion? Or can you guarantee something like that would never happen?

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 5:46 pm |

      What I’d really like to know is what combination of natural and internal variability and external forcings brought about the Minoan warm period. Solar forced?

    • Matthew R Marler | November 2, 2013 at 6:05 pm |

      R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist: What’s your memeplex say?

      It looks like the current rate of increase is very close to most previous rates of increase; and the peak of the current increase is not yet known.

    • John Carpenter | November 3, 2013 at 10:23 am |

      In the context presented…. remarkably unremarkable.

  3. xanonymousblog | November 2, 2013 at 4:47 pm |

    Here is the work of oppo 2009 for the same region (2000 years), except SST for indo thru flo

    http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:1:0::::P1_STUDY_ID:8699

    xanonymousblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/oppo-2009.jpg

    Is it me or are the SST “following” BWT?

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | November 2, 2013 at 5:29 pm |

      SST is following BWT because of the recovery from the LIA which was not as PDQ as suspected :)

      • X Anonymous | November 2, 2013 at 6:28 pm |

        The difference in the trends (BWT vs SST) is also striking. Would be nice to compare on the same graph. Looks like a 90 year lag. As long as one could rule out an error in the age model (possible), and the lag time in variability was fairly consistent thru time. Wow. Another 90+ years of surface warming “locked in”? And then when OHC builds up, La Nina grande? It’s almost certain OHC will reverse sometime in the future, now we have this information. The surface will definitely keep warming even if this happens in the coming decades.
        ATTENTION WARMISTS: When OHC turns the corner, irrespective of ice sea level and surface temperature changes, you are falsified (if not already (certainly the “extremely likely part” is toast)).

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 8:53 pm |

        x anon:

        Your certainty that OHC is going to “turn the corner” is based on what? It has been rising pretty steadily for 50+ years on a decadal basis. It seems your certainty must be based on the denialist memeplex, which has been well outlined on many websites, such as:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      • X Anonymous | November 3, 2013 at 1:45 am |

        gates, the BWT data clearly show the recent changes over the last 2000 years, for example, are WAY out side what one would expect with a “radiative forced” climate system. As the authors state with the press release its not the magnitude of recent warming that looks anomalous when compared to the BWT, it’s the rate (Red Herring /Political correctness alert). So while there is a legitimate argument regarding the impact of AGW on this “unprecedented rate”, that does not change the fact that the data it self has warming and cooling regimes of similar magnitude to modern warming. I did I post somewhere on this website, regarding internal variability. The prospect of a negative feedback dominating the climate system is very real given this new data. There is no physical explanation for the noisy variability seen in the OHC proxy data. Positive feedback needs forcing (Dude, where’s my car (forcing)?). The whole AGW argument is based on the variability being only of minor significance. However, this is clearly not the case on these time scales. For this globally significant region, the changes are HUGE, and the ups and downs are not associated with external forcing. I know there will be a down turn simply looking at the statistical variability.

      • captdallas 0.8 or less | November 3, 2013 at 5:59 am |

        X, the lag varies between ~60 and 90 years for the shorter periods and there is an ~800 year half cycle.

        https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-624h1uKZbvo/UnQ2bKHhM8I/AAAAAAAAKUg/T-fRFmyAlGA/s993/ipwp%2520solar%2520and%2520north%2520ex%252050yr%2520correl%2520plus%2520100%2520year%2520smooth.png

        Bond events are about 1470 +/- 500 years.

    • captdallas 0.8 or less | November 3, 2013 at 7:40 pm |

      X I have been playing with Oppo 2009 making some instrumental to paleo splices and the differences in trends are some of the fun. So I just did a SST mask to compare basin correlations to GISS you might find interesting

      http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/11/climate-versus-weather-correlations.html

      Oppo 2009 does have an excellent correlation to tropical data, but that won’t impress many without showing the strong correlation to “Global” data.

  4. Chief Hydrologist | November 2, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

    Sure – http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

    This one is more immediately relevant – as an antidote to webby’s serial ……………….

    • Matthew R Marler | November 2, 2013 at 6:10 pm |

      thanks for the link. Has the author written a sequel?

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 2, 2013 at 8:49 pm |

      http://contextearth.com/2013/10/30/detailed-analysis-of-csalt-model/

      I found only one spike of unattributed significant noise in the temperature record of the last 130+ years. That would be a couple-year span starting in 1943. It is either a highly amplified SOI spike, something to do with the war, measurement error perhaps having to do with a change in SST procedures [1], or some other unknown noise source.

      Get to the bottom of this and we learn something. Ignore it and put your head in the sand, we don’t learn anything.

      [1]P. D. Jones and T. M. L. Wigley, “Corrections to pre-1941 SST measurements for studies of long-term changes in SSTs,” in Proc. Int. COADS Workshop, HF Diaz, K. Wolter, and SD Woodruff, Eds., Boulder, CO, NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories, 1992, pp. 227–237.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 2:19 am |

        Web

        As I previously remarked, after having looked at the SST record in detail I would not place much credence on it as a global data base until the 1960’s or so. (even then it has large gaps in coverage)

        You also have the Buckets to engine water inflow question to consider.
        SSTs were effectively not measured during the war years and a collective effort wasn’t made again until the 1950’s. Even then data has been sporadically missing due to a number of political issues, for example lack of cooperation with Russia prior to and after the war.
        tonyb

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 3, 2013 at 11:14 am |

        So we have one vote that the temperature spike of 1943-1944 could have been due to missing temperature measurements.
        During the war years I noticed that a huge chunk of SST measurements were missing south of the equator, according to the map at the bottom of this page:
        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2-3.html

        The CSALT model was not predicting a warm spike in 1943-1944 as the complementary SOI spike did not exist, yet it is possible that the global temperature signal was interpolated (or kriged) to indicate that a warming spike was there. Whether this was real or an artifact of the interpolation is up in the air.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 11:28 am |

        Web

        I would check on the papers of John Kennedy at the Met office who is heavily involved in SST’s.

        One SST reading a year in a 5 degree square would trigger subsequent interpolation. The data needs to be taken with a large dose of sea salt for the reasons stated.

        Over confidence generally in the value of largely non existent or suspect data warrants considerable circumspection about the past, especially with regards to SST’s.
        tonyb

      • GarryD | November 3, 2013 at 11:38 am |

        Web and Steve,
        Thank you for the replies. I agree with both of you but likely made my point poorly. L. Svalgaard’s long-term trend and quote is used because scientists do not cherry pick. Those with an agenda cherry pick.

        Again the quote which is an answer to a habitual cherry picker “We are not warming. We are slowly cooling inching along to the next glaciation”. It is an important point from his slide presentation/BECOMING A SCIENTIST). He is just talking about what is actually known and supports the statement over a very long period of time to make the point to the aspiring scientist’s.

        RIGOR
        Is the current short-term trend really more important (a pause during a significant CO2 increase) than a long-term trend towards glaciation? Maybe? Easy decision/maybe? Svalgaard uses graphs to show there is nothing exceptional (in a 10,000 ft. perspective) about the current period. There are numerous ups and downs in a lower trend. He does not say, Mankind is not a PROBLEM because that is a different from the data being observed.

        SCIENCE versus AGENDA?
        My question to Steve was the “hehe”. I know he likes to tweak the closed minds because he can. But numbers, statistics and trends do get abused.

        Again, Leif’s quote was and needs to be separated from the commenters because the commenter was a habitual cherry picker. Being a scientist is a discipline which is hard (bright person’s vocation).

        Thanks. You Guys are Pretty Sharp

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 3, 2013 at 12:37 pm |

        This is how most historical data points get corrected. Some related anomalous data gets reported that is inconsistent with the recorded history and that triggers a re-evaluation of the data points around that period. People can then spend more time looking for a point that doesn’t make sense within the localized context.

        According to this figure, there is a warming spike around 1944 in the north Atlantic, but the temperatures in the south Atlantic are missing and we don’t know the extent of compensating cooling that they may show in comparison to the interpolation that was obviously done.
        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure3-5.jpeg

    • Chief Hydrologist | November 2, 2013 at 9:13 pm |

      ‘Abrupt climate change is defined as a large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. Study of past abrupt changes, preserved in paleoclimate records, provides important evidence on impacts of events that were so rapid and large that recurrence would pose significant risks for society. Examples of such abrupt events include: rapid changes in glaciers and ice sheets that affect sea level, widespread and sustained changes to the hydrologic cycle, shifts in northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic Ocean related to Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, and rapid release of methane trapped in permafrost and on continental margins to the atmosphere.’ http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/pt_abrupt_cc.asp

      There are fundamental things to learn about climate and there are trivialities. Of fundamental politIcal significance is the 1998/2001 climate shift. It is almost certain (.99%) that the world is not warming for a decade to three yet post 2002.

      • Chief Hydrologist | November 3, 2013 at 1:44 am |

        ‘What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere. Is it possible to successfully predict such climate shifts?’ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm

        It is not so amazing at all. ENSO causes most variability in atmospheric temperature. But to see where it is going – you need to understand the theory. The difference is between endlessly trivial pursuits and the big picture.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 2:12 am |

        Chief

        You can certainly see an abrupt climate change in the CET data around 1998. The 1976 shift is less clear.
        CET is a reasonable historic proxy for NH temperatures.

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
        tonyb

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 7:18 am |

        I love how, when it is pointed out to Chief that he has an inconsistent approach to uncertainty, he now changes is oft’ repeated complete certainty to….

        It is almost certain (.99%) that the world is not warming for a decade to three yet post 2002.

        Right. Because he’s calculated the probabilities down to the .01%.

        Error bars? Confidence Interval? He don’t need no error bars or confidence intervals. He’s the Chief. He posts on the Internet. He’s vanquishing enemies. You don’t need error bars or confidence intervals when you’re vanquishing enemies (from behind a keyboard).

        Hilarious.

      • bob droege | November 3, 2013 at 10:21 am |

        I can’t resist.

        He says .99%

        that rounds to 1%

        So 99% sure that the world is warming for a decade or three or it’s a typo

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 10:39 am |

        So, with your correction, Chief is respecting uncertainty more than I realized. He’s only 1% certain (and that with rounding up).

        :-)

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 3, 2013 at 10:56 am |

        Good catch, BD.

        “It is almost certain (.99%) that the world is not warming for a decade to three yet post 2002.”

        We can always laugh at The Chief while he is taking his nap down under.

        But wait till he wakes up, and the rage-o-meter goes full on.

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 11:14 am |

        Highest insult per byte ratio in the Internet, made only that much more amusing when he threatens to take his ball and go home (a threat he never follows through on) when his feelings are hurt.

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 3, 2013 at 12:13 pm |

        The Chief is a cartoon character, and one that he barely conceals. When his feelings get hurt he refers to a Simpson’s cartoon character as his inspiration, something to do with Sideshow Bob. Huh?

        The fact that most of the skeptics and deniers here consider The Chief as the braintrust of Team Denier, along with Dr. Girma, makes one wonder.

      • GarryD | November 3, 2013 at 1:17 pm |

        Chief,
        Two good posts.

        ” It is not so amazing at all. ENSO causes most variability in atmospheric temperature. But to see where it is going – you need to understand the theory. The difference is between endlessly trivial pursuits and the big picture”. The latter point is worthy a white paper.

      • Chief Hydrologist | November 3, 2013 at 3:43 pm |

        The IPCC likelihood terminology is ‘virtually certain’ – >99% probability. So it was a typo – that I thought was obvious and minor so didn’t correct. I should have remembered that the usual suspects will focus on trivialities rather than look at greater depth the regimes I have reading and thinking about for decades – and of course provide links to and quotes from leading edge science.

        It is virtually certain that the planet won’t warm for a decade to three. It is a bit of a sleight of hand. At the lower end we have 2023 – by which time we will be near the low point from the current high point in the solar cycle. Look at the data closely and see that the quiet Sun has not yet manifested in TSI – but that seem likely as well.

        http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/

        Add the fading sun – any volcanic activity at all and a cool IPO which is overwhelmingly likely to last another decade – with increased frequency and intensity of La Nina – and we get the planets aligning in the continuation of the hiatus.

        Opposed to that we the usual behaviour from the usual suspects. Neither webby or Joshua have a freakin’ clue and are unwilling or unable to consider leading edge science – as is obvious yet again in their comments along with the obligatory whines.

        I had some fun with Joshua some time ago – responding without reading his comments. It is easy to do because he always has the same t\trivial whines. He is not worth reading at all – and I continue my policy of mostly skipping over.

    • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 2, 2013 at 9:21 pm |

      Amazing how well something like the CSALT model works without having to invoke such grandiose and speculative notions such as the “1998/2001 climate shift”.

  5. Jim Cripwell | November 2, 2013 at 4:52 pm |

    I saw this
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/news/ipcc—tor/

    Tim Yeo is the chairman, but that is the only name I recognize. Is this going to be another whitewash, like the Royal Society 2 day “love in”, when only out and out warmists were invited to speak? Or will it really look at
    the issues?

    Anyone from the UK know?

    • Tonyb | November 2, 2013 at 5:32 pm |

      Jim cripwell

      The key name on that list is Peter Lilley. He is I think the only mp with a science degree and is a very long time sceptic.

      Tonyb

      • Vaughan Pratt | November 3, 2013 at 2:10 am |

        Any relation to Peter Silly, Vice Chairman and Senior Independent Non-Executive Director at Tethys Petroleum?

      • me | November 3, 2013 at 2:21 am |

        Tonyb – another incorrect statement that can easily be checked. There were 27 MPs with science degrees last June. Why make such statements that are easy to check? It makes one question your other statements.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 3:24 am |

        me

        It is reasonable to suggest that instead of trying to find fault with a helpful comment directed at another denizen, that you should have read my comment to Jim more thoroughly. It was made purely in the context of Lilley’s relevant qualifications compared to others on the ‘list’ i.e. the ‘committee’, and not Parliament in general. The qualifications of Mps in general in Parliament was never mentioned was it?

        I did not think I needed to qualify the nature of the science degree that made him especially relevant to the committee, as Jim would have researched that if it was of interest to him. .

        The nature of the science degree that made him relevant compared to others on the committee is that Peter Lilley was the only MP with a science degree in physics (from Cambridge).

        He also studied Economics and was only one of three Mp’s to vote against the Climate change act . He is therefore the only MP with a relevant science degree (in Physics) to sit on the committee that Jim was interested in.

        He is therefore well qualified to speak on climate related matters.

        Now, it may be of course that others have since joined this ever evolving committee with a degree in physics, if so, you can point them out and I can note that for future reference without the need for your snark and insinuation.
        tonyb

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 3:50 am |

        Vaughan

        Lilleys involvement is a matter of public record. If you are trying to make a point it would be worth your while to scrutinise Tim Yeo. Come to that the involvement of David Cameron and Nick Clegg in vested interests-wind,not oil, might be surprising to some.
        tonyb

      • Jim Cripwell | November 3, 2013 at 7:47 am |

        me, you write “Tonyb – another incorrect statement that can easily be checked.” .

        I suggest that in future you engage your brain, before you put your foot in your mouth. Tony was quite clearly talking only about the committee, and it was obvious to me what he meant. Remember this is a blog; people do not take immense care to ensure that what they write cannot be misinterpreted.

      • David Springer | November 3, 2013 at 11:24 am |

        climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 3:50 am |

        Vaughan

        Lilleys involvement is a matter of public record. If you are trying to make a point it would be worth your while to scrutinise Tim Yeo.

        Vaughn has already scrutinized everything worth scrutinizing. Since the time he completed the scrutinization of life, the universe, and everything he’s been transformed into a fount of knowledge.

        Write that down.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 12:18 pm |

        David

        So you are saying that Vaughan is omnipotent?

        Write that down,its much shorter.
        tonyb

  6. petermartin2001 | November 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm |

    Some of you my have noticed that I’ve had a try a starting my own blog. It been going about a week now. One of the key questions raised by climate sceptics about the costs of fixing the climate is “how are we going to pay for it all?” . Which is fair enough of course. At the moment I’m not sure if anyone is answering that question very well. Everyone seems bogged down in neo-liberal economics and questions about the national debt ceiling , balancing the budget etc.

    The household analogy , usually given by politicians as a justification for budget cuts is obviously very flawed. once it is seen that our economies don’t actually work in the way that most people think they work the picture becomes very clear. In our attempt to save money we are wasting resources!

    This is most popular posting so far:

    http://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/a-fairy-story/

  7. Jim Cripwell | November 2, 2013 at 5:02 pm |

    I think I have finally worked out where Steven Mosher is coming from. As I have previously noted, we cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere, so we cannot follow the normal scientific procedure to determine whether CAGW is more than a hypothesis. I conclude that this means science, physics, cannot tell us what happens to global temperatures when we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, from current levels.

    Steven thinks that this is giving up too soon, and it is better to do the best we can. So he postulates two things that I know of.

    1. Estimates are almost as good as measurements. This then overcomes the problem that we cannot measure climate sensitivity.

    2. Models can be validated against specifications; not reality. This then overcomes the problem that it is impractical to validate models to forecast what is going to happen in 30+ years, and we can conclude that the models give accurate forecasts.

    Both points are, of course, wrong.

    • Steven Mosher | November 2, 2013 at 6:04 pm |

      wrong

      1. Estimates are almost as good as measurements. This then overcomes the problem that we cannot measure climate sensitivity.

      This is flat wrong. Estimates are not almost good as measurements. Estimates are what they are. The vary in uncertainty from small to large.
      Lets take a simple example: Sensitivity.
      Recall, lambda, or climate sensitivity, is defined as

      Delta T/ Delta W, where T is temperature and W is Watts. The units
      are degrees per watts per sq meter.

      Delta T: we have estimates of delta T from 1850 to today. Call it
      1.5C +-.2 C This is an estimate based on measurements. You take
      measurements and you apply geostatistical theory. You get an estimate
      with uncertainty.

      Delta W. This is far more complex because there are many uknowns. Yet
      we can bound that uncertainty. Here is we total all the forcings (W) from
      C02, methane, black carbon, aerosols, we get a number like
      2.3 Watts +- 1 Watt. LOOK at That. Huge uncertanty. from 1.3 watts to
      3.3 watts. It dwarfs the uncertainty in temperature. neither of them are “almost” as good as measurements BUT THEY ARE NOT USELESS.

      What do we get when we use them.

      Lets take a simple case: Suppose temperature is 1.5C warmer.
      Suppose the forcing is actually 1.3 Watts

      We get: lambda = 1.5/1.3 lambda = 1.15 C per watt.

      Lets suppose the forcing is at the high end 3.3 watts

      we get 1.5/3.3 == .45 C per watt

      Finally, we need to know how much doubling C02 will raise temperatures. Here we are on much more solid ground because we have actual meseaurement and working theory.
      doubling = 3.7 Watts

      Final spread 3.7 * 1.15 means ECS of around 4.2C per doubling
      3.7* .45 means ECS of around 1.6 per doubling

      The point is Jim, the BEST ARGUMENT you can make looks at that spread.
      Your argument, which relies on misunderstandings of philosophy, mis representing other folks positions, your arguments will never work on the Royal society. They wont work on any working scientist. they wont work on any engineer who has been forced to estimate or to model.
      When skeptics look at this spread and make arguments WITHIN the science, they get heard.

      A) Anthony Watts. He makes arguments about Delta T. Last I looked he had a published paper.
      B) Nick Lewis. He makes arguments about how one estimates sensitivity ( using a waay better method than the simple one above)
      he is published.
      Troy master, Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, All of these men operate within the paradigm that we can make meaningful statements about sensitivity. They use accepted data and accepted methods. They are part of the debate. No one will ever listen to you until you join the debate.

      ##############################

      2. Models can be validated against specifications; not reality. This then overcomes the problem that it is impractical to validate models to forecast what is going to happen in 30+ years, and we can conclude that the models give accurate forecasts.

      #############

      WRONG. models ARE validated against specs. This is just a fact of IV&V. The SPEC, of course, can be. “thou shalt match reality” But the spec NEED NOT BE. In practice, we might say “The system shall reproduce the temperature within 1C” When you validate you then check against the SPEC.

      Like so

      Spec: The system will match temperature to within 1 C
      Test: The temperature was 15C, the model said 15.8 C
      result: VALID. you match the spec

      or so

      Spec: The system will match temperature to within .005 C
      Test: The temperature was 15C, the model said 15.05 C
      result: INVALID. you missed the spec

      So, a spec is defined ( 1C is close enough or .005C)
      The system is tested against the SPEC. In the first case a model thatis far away from reality is validated, in the second case a model that is closer FAILS validation.

      you validate against the spec. the big fight is WHAT SHOULD THE SPEC BE.

      users determine the spec.

      Hint: GCMs have no spec.

      • Matthew R Marler | November 2, 2013 at 6:46 pm |

        Steven Mosher: Finally, we need to know how much doubling C02 will raise temperatures. Here we are on much more solid ground because we have actual meseaurement and working theory.
        doubling = 3.7 Watts

        We have a “measurement” of how much LWIR on the surface will result from doubling CO2 concentration uniformly throughout the atmosphere? Where and when on earth were these measurements taken? In those times and places, how did they double the atmospheric concentration of CO2?

        Do we have a working theory of what balance of warming and increased vaporization will result from such a slight increase in downwelling radiation on the 90% or so of the Earth surface that is not dry?

        Granted, there is a “working theory”, but it assumes warming without any vaporization. How accurate can that be?

      • Matthew R Marler | November 2, 2013 at 6:53 pm |

        Steven Mosher: Spec: The system will match temperature to within 1 C
        Test: The temperature was 15C, the model said 15.8 C
        result: VALID. you match the spec

        or so

        Spec: The system will match temperature to within .005 C
        Test: The temperature was 15C, the model said 15.05 C
        result: INVALID. you missed the spec

        So, a spec is defined ( 1C is close enough or .005C)
        The system is tested against the SPEC. In the first case a model thatis far away from reality is validated, in the second case a model that is closer FAILS validation.

        you validate against the spec. the big fight is WHAT SHOULD THE SPEC BE.

        Good discussion; “spec vs measurements” is not the correct way to pose the validation problem. The problem is “How close to the measurements does the model have to be to be useful for a given purpose?” and “Exactly what measurements are the criteria?” eg annual mean global temp vs regional/seasonal mean rainfalls, and so on.

      • Mike Flynn | November 2, 2013 at 7:05 pm |

        Steven Mosher,

        What is your estimate of climate sensitivity where the sunlight is absent, for example at night?

        Additionally, if the Sun warms anything exposed to it during the day, doesn’t the T^4 thing mean that hotter objects will cool faster at night anyway?

        The Pantheon in Rome has been absorbing sunlight for a couple of thousand years. I didn’t notice it being warmer than the modern gelateria alongside at daybreak

        This whole “heat trapping” nonsense is merely the product of Warmists febrile imaginations. I don’t know how you would measure it, but on a scale of delusions, it’s right up there with phlogiston and caloric.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Herman Alexander Pope | November 3, 2013 at 9:53 am |

        Add extra heat, that melts ice faster, that warms oceans faster, that starts the snowfall sooner, the thermostat kicks on and the snowfall limits the upper bound. Every bit of more open polar waters causes huge amounts of more snowfall.
        This system has an upper bound that has been strongly enforced for ten thousand years that is a lower bound than what was enforced before the polar ice cycle got in the modern configuration.

    • petermartin2001 | November 2, 2013 at 6:20 pm |

      Steven,

      You’re welcome to have a try with Jim but I would say its a waste of time.

      He’s locked into a thought (if that’s the right word for it) train of: 1) experiments on the climate aren’t possible, 2) therefore there is no empirical evidence of any temperature rise caused by human emissions of GH gases 3) therefore there can’t possibly be any problem 4) So, humanity can carry emitting in a business as usual fashion.

      • Jim Cripwell | November 2, 2013 at 6:58 pm |

        Peter, you write “He’s locked into a thought (if that’s the right word for it) train of: 1) experiments on the climate aren’t possible, 2) therefore there is no empirical evidence of any temperature rise caused by human emissions of GH gases 3) therefore there can’t possibly be any problem 4) So, humanity can carry emitting in a business as usual fashion.”

        Boy, talk about putting words in my mouth!!

        1. I never said that. I said CONTROLLED experiments. There is a difference, in case you had not noticed.

        2. If you had put the CONTROLLED in 1, you would see that I am correct.

        3. Wrong. I have always said that CAGW is a perfectly viable hypothesis. I cannot prove it is wrong, for the same reason the warmists cannot prove that it is true.

        4. Wrong. There may well be a problem for humanity. But the science has not shown this to be correct. So, until there is science to show CAGW is a problem, we should not be telling our politician that there is 95% probability that things about CAGW are true.

    • blouis79 | November 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm |

      All of the fundamentals of modern physics have been verified experimentally. There is no excuse for not verifying the individual elements of GCMs experimentally.

      • Jim Cripwell | November 2, 2013 at 8:37 pm |

        blouis79 +100. But the warmists will never agree.

      • Jim D | November 2, 2013 at 8:43 pm |

        Are you saying that GCMs are not verified against current climate?

      • blouis79 | November 3, 2013 at 1:46 am |

        @JimD While GCMs are not verified against current climate nor paleoclimate, that is not the point I was making.

        The individual smaller assumptions and parameters embedded within the code of the GCM needs to be verified against doable real experiments.

        Perhaps also the GCMs need to have embedded code that generates its own error bars. For each little calculation with its own possible error, the output must contain some mathematical and scientific imprecision. Particle physicists need to be 6 sigma accurate to be scientifically certain. How do climate scientists defend qualitative certainty beyond confirmation bias?

      • blouis79 | November 3, 2013 at 1:49 am |

        @JimD if Murry Salby thinks the evidence supports that CO2 levels are a result of temperature and not the cause, why can’t we do laboratory experiments to test his version versus the mainstream climate science version?

      • Pekka Pirilä | November 3, 2013 at 5:47 am |

        blouis79,

        Very many laboratory experiments have been done, probably all doable experiments that are relevant for these issues have been repeated many times. What has been learned from those experiments is taken into account in main stream climate science, which is to a large extent built on these experiments directly or indirectly. In most cases the connection is indirect:

        1) Fundamental physical theories have been tested and found to be in agreement with the results. If a disagreement has been found it’s either judged inconclusive or the theory is dismissed. I do believe that what I wrote is not an overstatement as I don’t know about any serious outstanding disagreement related to fundamental physics potentially relevant for climate science.

        2) The fundamental physical theories are used in developing understanding of the atmosphere.

        There are many open questions, but they cannot be resolved by laboratory experiments because they occur at scales impossible to reproduce in a laboratory. It’s still possible to improve detailed knowledge by further laboratory experiments, but that’s gradual development where essential new results are rare and impossible to foresee.

        As an example the solubility of CO2 in water and brine has been measured as function of partial pressure of CO2 and temperature. From that we know for sure that warming of the oceans may have added only a few ppm out of the 120 ppm increase in the atmosphere, but many further details are not known as well, because the oceans are more complex than a laboratory setup.

      • maksimovich | November 3, 2013 at 6:05 am |

        In the last 10ky peatland have added 450 pg C,where did it come from?

      • blouis79 | November 3, 2013 at 4:29 pm |

        @Pekka

        While some keep saying what you are saying, every time I ask for the results of *any* experiment or propose experiments I would like answers to , up comes a big blank nothing.

    • gbaikie | November 2, 2013 at 10:29 pm |

      “I think I have finally worked out where Steven Mosher is coming from. As I have previously noted, we cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere, so we cannot follow the normal scientific procedure to determine whether CAGW is more than a hypothesis. I conclude that this means science, physics, cannot tell us what happens to global temperatures when we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, from current levels.”
      Yup. Science can not tell you how much the world will warm if you add
      more CO2.
      But science is a process of getting to point of predicting such things as
      how much the world will warm if add more CO2.
      It’s not scientific to ignore this question.
      Though It seems to me that one dismiss CAGW as hypothesis.
      In terms of say, if we added 1000 ppm of CO2 to the global level 400 ppm
      CO2, the world does not end. As in we fairly certain that Earth has had in the past more than 1500 ppm and the world did not end.
      Likewise, the global levels of methane which are around 1.8 ppm, were
      to increase to 500 ppm, the world would not end.
      Not only would the world not end, but if we had 1400 ppm of CO2 and
      400 ppm of methane, humans and other life would not live in a noticeable
      warmer world. Though one might be able to measure the increase in global temperature.
      Now, most people who aren’t believers in CAGW, would agree that there is not any actual reason to assume that within a century we could possible see global levels of 1400 ppm of CO2 or 500 ppm of Methane. There is a fear of something vaguely like this occurring, but there more likely fears and greater consequences.
      The fear of an increase in greenhouse gases would similar to fear of added insulation to our house, or assumption that one never have to heat or cool the house. Or in nanny state idiocy don’t encourage insulating the homes because they may roast or freeze themselves.

      But let’s suppose that Earth with 1400 ppm of CO2 and 500 ppm of Methane, were to get warmer, according to AGW. And suppose that such levels of greenhouse gases were to increase global average temperature by 5 C. If this were true, then we still have “humans and other life would not live in a noticeable warmer world”.
      5 C warmer is almost the stuff of hysterical CAGW and it’s within range of upper estimates of IPCC.
      Now 5 C warmer globally, does mean the sidewalk will become 5 C warmer.
      A sidewalk getting 5 C warmer than it normally gets is actually something which is noticeable for humans and other life. But global average temperature is not about the temperature of sidewalks.
      AND it’s possible sidewalk could get warmer [and if they did, one should not assume this has anything to do with the Greenhouse theory].
      Or we could be living in a world which had the highest temperature of sidewalks being 5 C warmer, and not have a higher average global temperature. So greenhouse theory does not address how hot beach sand gets at the beach.
      The temperature of sand or sidewalk has to do with material surface characteristic [such as color], and the amount of watts per square meter
      of sunlight. Plus losses due to convection.
      Or it’s “difficult” to fry eggs on a sidewalk, it doesn’t help much if trying to fry eggs in a greenhouse or car in parking lot- despite the fact that greenhouse or parked cars are mostly about limiting convection of heat.
      You can fry eggs on sidewalks if add more watts per square meter of sunlight [reflectors which reflect more sunlight on the area].
      So greenhouse gas have nothing to do with increasing temperatures of sand and sidewalks. This should not be something debatable or no one attempts do this other than goofy news reports about melted street lamps and roads. Silliness.
      The next point is something people will argue about, perhaps. The greenhouse effect does increase how warm [air temperature] during summer days.
      It doesn’t cause the hottest days ever, to become hotter. It is gospel truth
      that greenhouse gases cause hotter summer days. Or at least make longer periods of hotter days [or increase the severity and frequency of heatwaves.
      I will simply say this no more proven [nor fits with greenhouse theory] than idea that AGW causes more hurricanes. Noting that this year has had a very low level of hurricane activity. Which increasing violent weather is also a “truth” widely believed.
      And I will add one more thing, there is no doubt that manmade urban heat island effects do make day hotter. This effect of UHI very noticeable and is indisputable.
      So if greenhouse gases don’t increase the skin surfaces of things like sidewalks, and don’t even increase how hot a day becomes, what is it doing? Theory would predict that greenhouse gases reduces the amount of heat leaving Earth. So 3 feet under the sidewalk it should be
      become slightly warmer. And the oceans 100 meter below the surface should be getting warmer. Or said differently if 3 feet under the sidewalk is not warming, you don’t have “global warming”. If you have the world warming 3 feet under the sidewalk is warming. And measuring air temperature is merely a way to measure whether 3 feet under the sidewalk is becoming warmer.
      So one could have 3 feet under the sidewalk 10 C warmer and it’s not
      going to cause the surface of sidewalk to become hotter. It will not be as cold and will warming quicker, but occurs seasonal and doesn’t affect the highest temperature the sidewalk’s surface becomes.
      In fact having warmer substance below the sidewalk reduces the amount heat transferred beneath the surface [from a trickle of hours of heat from sunlight and days of warmer air].
      So a warmer world is indicated by where 6 inches under dirt, the ground is frozen [I.e the frost line]. The more poleward it is, the warmer the world is.
      So how far would the frost line go if the world was 5 C warmer. Evenually it go much further poleward than did in early part of our Holocene.

      So right now living in Torrance, CA, at 6.30 pm it is about 15 C, and if the world was 5 C, then it would probably be warmer. It could be 20 C
      and less likely to be cooler than 15 C. But past years it has been 20 C
      or warmer at this time of the year. Or very rarely do winter temperature get below 0 C. So sometime day times in winters in this area can approach summer time temperatures- not the warmest summertime temperature, but it’s like summer. So if winter was more like summer that is the expected result of warming world. But winter would never get as hot as my current summers can get. The sun is simply to low on the horizon during the winter. So the result is less variability of seasonal effects in terms of temperature- or almost the definition of tropical climate. And moving poleward San Fransisco will get my type of seasonal difference- though rarely snows in San Fransisco, either. But we get less frost. It’s quite rare here. And 5 C warming less likely to get frost in winter nites, all way up to Oregon.
      So up tropic of Capricorn [ 23° 26 latitude] is 40% of the world. Up to 38 degrees latitude is half the world, San Francisco is 37.7 latitude.
      So if the normal winter time temperatures don’t go below 10 C in San Francisco [or warmer then where I live [last night was 5 C] then that is basically a world 5 C warmer.
      The temperatures in polar regions are irrelevant to global temperatures, though one probably see less temperature below -20 C and one would have less snowing in polar region’s summer:
      http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/early-snow-expected-alaska/
      Due to weather conditions.
      So if you had 5 C warmer, that probably would wipeout the chances of skiing in the relatively low elevation mountains in southern California. And Mammoth could have as bad skiing conditions as southern California, but it’s hardly the end of the world.
      And of course we are not going to get 5 C of global warming.
      Nor is it in any way possible within a century of time.
      Now, I believe the main hysterical regarding CAGW is the idea that humans could possibly alter global temperature by any amount- the
      idea of human’s altering global temperature is “unholy”. And in that sense I think I would like to comfort the believers, the world is still not violated or more or less a virgin.

    • Vaughan Pratt | November 3, 2013 at 2:17 am |

      @Jim Cripwell: we cannot follow the normal scientific procedure to determine whether CAGW is more than a hypothesis.

      Nor can we follow the normal scientific procedure to determine whether the Sun is more than a hypothesis.

      If you have such a procedure it would be very interesting to see.

      • Jim Cripwell | November 3, 2013 at 6:42 am |

        Vaughan So what? Whether or not the Sun is a hypothesis, is not going to ruin the world economy, cost us trillions in taxpayer dollars, and significantly reduced our standard of living. That is the issue. There is no science to show that CAGW is anything more than a hypothesis. If there is, it would, be very interesting to me.

      • Jim Cripwell | November 3, 2013 at 9:10 am |

        Vaughan, as a follow up. Do you have any references to the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the UK, the Chancellor of Germany, and the President of France making important statements about the Sun and whether it is a hypothesis or not? If you have, they would be very interesting to me.

    • petermartin2001 | November 4, 2013 at 12:50 am |

      Jim Cripwell. “There may well be a problem for humanity.”

      If very likely = 90%

      Would “may well’ = 70% -80% ?

      Careful what you say, Jim. You wouldn’t want to be accused of being a warmist , would you?

      Peter (tempterrain)

  8. Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 5:08 pm |

    Tol, R.S.J. (2011) “The Economic Impact of Climate Change in the 20th and 21st Centuries”
    http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

    Based on this paper I suggest:

    1. The best way to combat the negative impacts of climate change is to assist the poorest countries to become richer.

    2. By far the greatest negative contributor to impacts is the cost of energy (see Figure 3). I expect this analysis does not properly allow for the large reduction in costs that is likely as we move from fossil fuels to nuclear energy this century. For example, if the cost of electricity reduces at the rate of 10% per doubling of capacity of small modular nuclear plants, the cost of nuclear generated electricity would be half the cost of coal generated electricity by about 2040. Therefore, the second best way to combat the impacts of climate change is to remove the impediments to nuclear power and allow it to become cheaper.

    3. This paper demonstrates how poorly we understand the impacts of climate change. The explanation here shows we have almost nothing to go on. The economic analyses and the studies of impacts of climate change are very immature at this stage.

    • Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 5:29 pm |

      There is declining public interest in ‘human caused climate change’ (see: “all English-language monitored mainstream and social media coverage worldwide of ‘Climate Change’” over the past 5 years: http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline )

      There is declining public support for mitigation policies like ‘carbon’ pricing (see “all English-language monitored mainstream and social media coverage worldwide of ‘Carbon Credits’” over the past 4 years: http://carboncredits.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline )

      People are unwilling to pay the cost of the ‘carbon’ mitigation schemes, especially once they realise they have negligible likelihood of making any real difference to the climate. Carbon pricing is highly unlikely to deliver any benefits, unlikely to last if started and would cost the world dearly; for example, the Australian Treasury estimated that the ETS would cause a net loss of $1,345 billion cumulative to 2050 (in 2010 A$). That’s the equivalent of a one year loss of GDP. (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/ )

      Richard Tol (2013) estimates that global warming is likely to be net positive up to about 2.2 C increase above current global average temperature, with maximum benefit at about 1 C to 1.5 C increase from today (see Figure 1 here: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps37-2012-tol.pdf&site=24). We would not want to miss the benefits, so, ideally we would capture the benefits and avoid the net costs that might come with the currently projected higher temperatures late this century.

      The majority of people “would like to do something” to reduce what is widely believed to be a risk to future generations, but only if “do something” can be done at no economic cost or, even better, while delivering net benefits without relying on claimed climate benefits.

      Below I suggest how we might gain the benefits of moderate warming in the near term and greatly reduce GHG emissions in mid century (to reduce risk of excessive warming in the longer term). If we start now, we can ramp up to reduce emissions from fossil fuels rapidly between 2040 and 2060.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 10:36 pm |

        Peter Lang said:
        “There is declining public interest in ‘human caused climate change…”
        “There is declining public support for mitigation policies like ‘carbon’ pricing…”
        “People are unwilling to pay the cost of the ‘carbon’ mitigation schemes…”

        ___
        Could be another indication of causal mechanisms for the “Great Filter”?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

      • Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 10:51 pm |

        You mean your right and everyone else is wrong, eh?

        Does it occur to you that your personal filter is filtering out information you don’t want to know about?

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 11:20 pm |

        Peter Lang:

        I consider all possibilities. I think it is interesting to consider the Fermi Paradox and the “Great Filter” in light of our current AGW discussions. I am open to the possibility that CO2 increases might have only beneficial results for humanity and that the Fermi Paradox has other explanations other than the Great Filter. It is also possible that the Great Filter does exist, but is not related at all to GHG emissions from humans. As an honest skeptic, I remain open to all possibilities, even if I consider some more likely than others.

      • Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 11:47 pm |

        R. Gates, I don’t regard you as honest anything, sorry.

      • Peter Lang | November 3, 2013 at 12:02 am |

        I expect it is more likely impacts of GW are being overstated rather than understated. My reasons are tow:

        1. Tol says: ”

        the researchers who published impact estimates are from a small and close-knit community who may be subject to group-think, peer pressure and self-censoring.

        (see the penultimate paragraph in Section 2: “https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps37-2012-tol.pdf&site=24 )

        2. Climate scientists have been overstating the climate sensitivity for 25 years, and now it is being recognised. Similar is more probable than not to apply to the impacts.

        By far the largest impact is cost of energy. Increasing energy cost dominates all other costs and benefits. If not for increasing energy costs, GW would be net beneficial well beyond 2100 and beyond 4 C increase from now, according to Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf . But the cost of energy will come down as we get over the anti-nuke paranoia. So, from this figure, it would be reasonable to conclude, GW would be net beneficial for all this century – if the greenies and ‘progressives’ stopped blocking progress and allowed the cost of energy to come down.

      • gbaikie | November 3, 2013 at 12:35 am |

        “Could be another indication of causal mechanisms for the “Great Filter”?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ”
        Much more likely the Great Yawn.

        The reason we have no space aliens is because the universe is big.
        It would interesting that there could advanced civilization in one the nearest star system. But odds don’t favor it. Even if there was a million advance civilization in our galaxy the odds don’t favor it. It need to be about a billion advance civilizations to give us good odds.

        There is no need to go to other star systems.
        Our solar system at our current level of technology [meaning one aspect being not much technology in terms of nanotechnology] could support
        tens of trillions of human beings for billions of years.
        I idea of mining the Oort cloud, is much easier than going to another solar system.
        Our human civilization can wiped out very easily from space. If human extinction was desired, a small probe could sent to our system could move a single rock among thousands of rocks, and if aimed right, kill everyone. Or simple a probe at near light speed hitting Earth would also work- might be slightly harder to aim.

        So main factors regarding human existence are volcanoes and impactors.
        Not as much factors in life’s existent- the dinosaur was wiped out by 10 km diameter space rock, but rock didn’t extinguish all life. Nor was that impactor the biggest to hit earth, nor was the event the biggest extinction
        type event. Such as permian event:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

        Earthlings way or may not have had more extinction type event. It’s not even clear which would better: more or less.
        Certainly we have had a lot of them, but if we had half as many would an intelligent species “arrived”.
        Think of the human creature. A tropical creature. It evolved during 50 million year long Ice Age. If you “planned it” would that be the recipe?
        Would a tropical creature journey throughout the world during an global Ice Age? What develop an farming civilization during period when broadly it’s worse of times to farm. How does this creature go from playing with sticks to space travel in less than 20,000 years. I mean is it predictable.
        As if because it’s buried under ice this tropical species is poised to advance- and adding to this, it didn’t do this over dozens earlier previous cycles of glaciation and interglacial periods.

        We couldn’t even plan it, assuming we control the starting conditions,
        what will cause an advanced civilization to appear, tens of millions of years later.
        So one 100 km diameter space rock if it hit earth will end all life on earth, and other solar system [including the Oort cloud] has unknown quantities of them, but thousands is fairly reasonable guess.
        And Earth very early was probably hit by mars size rock, which formed our Moon. And early in it’s history hit by lots of 100 km rocks. Both Mars and the Moon has craters from such beasts.
        Does all solar systems have a main asteroid belts. Do have no such belt, do they have a few of them. Not that main asteroid belt is where most of our solar system rocks are, but rather it’s area where one could say there wasn’t enough rocks to make a planet- and due to Jupiter mass. And are largest planet is really very big. What if Jupiter were a brown dwarf, maybe Mars would not have formed- so an even bigger main asteroid belt with maybe 6 Ceres size rocks [dwarf planets]. Such an arrangement might lead to less impactors hitting Earth but bigger rocks hitting billions of year later. So wiping a planets life out of existence every couple billion years of so. So in such situation Earth could have life, but it’s microbial- blue green algae, etc.

        Another problem is leaving Earth. if we had 4 times our atmosphere, it could harder to leave Earth- though I can’t say that will certainty, as it might be easier. Though our current way of doing it wouldn’t work- really big mothership could work and flying would be higher, but could be better flying.
        But gravity makes it harder [sort of]. So we need about 10 km/sec of delta-v to get to our orbital velocity of 7.8 km/sec. If orbital velocity was 10 km/sec, the people who claimed getting into space was impossible could be still right. Maybe.
        Why maybe? it depends on how do things. If we do things like we are currently do things, then it’s impossible. But 10 km/sec orbital velocity would not have stopped suborbital ICBM from working- harder yes, a wall, no. Or the cost would made having 1/2 as many more likely- but “worth it”.
        So suborbital is much different than orbital. No orbital, no satellites.
        No commercial satellite market, no space agencies. No solar panels- and Germany not wasting so much money building them. And no climate science that we familiar with. More trillions of dollars not wasted.
        Then again, it could much easier to get into space- a lot easier.
        But this doesn’t translate into easier to leave solar system. You have leave earth before you go to the stars. But if was easier leaving our home world, you could not have nuclear technology. Nuclear technology isn’t even needed to leave Earth. Leaving our solar system
        without nuclear technology is near impossible. So one could have a space faring civilization which confine within it’s inner solar system- or
        near sunlight So for us,Mercury, Venus, Moon, Mars and Main Asteroid Belt. So could spend thousands of year farting around their inner solar system, have telescopes bigger than cities, know where all the alien civilizations nearby are [within 1000 light years] and build defenses against any possible visitation or invasion. They could do things to stop others from entering their system. Unless it’s space travel which is slow. And could spend a lot resources doing this. And/or
        like us have restriction on nuclear technology which is more confined only military use.

    • GaryM | November 2, 2013 at 5:38 pm |

      Peter Lang,

      The only way to do that would be to change their forms of government. Those countries, no matter how bad off, have a tendency to resent such a thing. Look at how many Iraqis reacted to being liberated from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein (and his equally lovely sons).

      Third world despotism is a tough nut to crack. When do you let the countries stumble their way to modernity on their own? And when do you say enough genocide is enough?

      What is clearly the wrong policy is allowing progressives to bribe the dictators with western tax dollars to allow the progs to engage in their little social engineering experiments on those not of the white progressive progressive persuasion.

      • Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 5:56 pm |

        GaryM,

        One of my comments has been hijacked by moderation. It is the second of three comments. It provides wisdom and essential knowledge for the advancement of mankind :)

        The only way to do that would be to change their forms of government.

        I disagree. We don’t have to intervene nor tell them how to run their countries. Markets rule. If we allow free trade and we also remove the blocks that are preventing the world having to low cost nuclear power, the markets will handle the rest.

      • GaryM | November 2, 2013 at 6:34 pm |

        Peter Lang,

        I don’t know how “we” “allow free trade” in North Korea, Syria, Ethiopia, the Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and on and on and on….

        Free markets in free societies have not existed for the vast majority of human history. They are not the norm, which we merely need to allow to arise.

        I am not advocating a benign imperialism. But saying free markets alone can raise the billions of people in the world living under despotism out of poverty leaves out how those people will ever be allowed to participate in such markets.

        We agree on the goal, but we disagree on whether the west can even do it, let alone how.

        How to make elephant soup. First, get an elephant. Second….

      • Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 9:24 pm |

        GaryM,

        I don’t know how “we” “allow free trade” in North Korea, Syria, Ethiopia, the Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and on and on and on….

        That’s cherry picking. Time is a critical factor. I am talking about time scales out to five decades and beyond. I was not meaning to imply it can/will all be done in a decade. To get a perspective of what can be achieved over these time scales look at how Japan, China, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Brazil, etc have advanced during the past 60 years. Look at the spread of democracy (not perferct anywhere bu improving almost everywhere) and free trade and globalisation. The trend is clear. Do you really think the world is going to stop this advance now? If you agree it will continue, project to where the world will be in another two to five decades from now.

        We agree on the goal, but we disagree on whether the west can even do it, let alone how.

        The west doesn’t have to do a lot. What it needs to do is stop blocking freer trade and allow the winding back of the impediments that are making nuclear far more expensive than it should and could be.

        A wise US president could make this happen just through power of persuasion. Put pressure on Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, etc. to wisen up or lose their membership, and we’d be well on the way.

        I accept it won’t happen over night but I believe a good and wise US President could set the change going so it is irreversible.

      • GaryM | November 2, 2013 at 11:25 pm |

        Peter Lang,

        In fact I don’t agree that the world is becoming more democratic.

        The developed western countries, with a few exceptions, are actually headed in the opposite direction. The EU in particular is becoming more centralized, with Brussels assuming ever more of what used to be national sovereignty in Europe.

        Russia started to become free economically and politically after the fall of the Soviet Union, but the Russian security apparatus and its friends in the Russian mafia had different ideas. So while Russia might hold elections, it is at best an oligarchy headed toward flat out dictatorship.

        China is not the least democratic, they are still communist. India is putatively democratic, but if you are of the wrong caste, wrong party, or wrong family that doesn’t help much. China ranks 136th on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, India 112th.

        China is undergoing a period of what was called perestroika in the Soviet Union, without the glasnost. But you see what happened in Russia.

        Vietnam is also still communist and socialist.

        Japan was dragged kicking and screaming into the free market, democratic republic system after it lost a world war. It is mired in over a decade of stagnation as its economy is stifled by statist controls.

        Where are the increasingly democratic countries in Africa?

        South America? With rare exceptions like Chile, Chavez style hard core socialism is the norm. Where they are not virtual narco states.

        The Middle East? Except Israel – fuggedaboutit.

        Roughly half of the world’s population lives under outright dictatorship. Much of the rest are not faring much better.

        And the progressives, moderates and independents in the west are hell bent on joining them.

        Free market democratic republics (the real thing) are not the norm in this century, and are extremely rare in human history.

        The best western democracies can do for the poor countries of the world, is survive the onslaught of progressivism to provide an example to the peoples of the rest of the world. In hopes that they will one day throw off the chains in which their ruling elites hold them.

        “Fostering a free market” for the third world is just not realistic.

      • GaryM | November 2, 2013 at 11:27 pm |

        Peter Lang,

        Don’t get me wrong, I believe the west should maintain and expand a free market, even to un-free countries, on principle and for humanitarian reasons. I just do not see it as something that will free most of those other countries, at least not in our lifetimes.

      • gbaikie | November 3, 2013 at 1:03 am |

        “Peter Lang,

        I don’t know how “we” “allow free trade” in North Korea, Syria, Ethiopia, the Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and on and on and on….”

        Defund UN unless these countries are not considered nations.
        So part definition of nation should be is not preventing it’s citizens from
        leaving the hell hole we are pretending are States.
        Why can’t UN nations at this point in time recognize that these
        “failed states” are indeed, not nations.
        Instead we get a UN that puts these criminals in charge of UN human rights commissions.

        States which aren’t states, should given opportunity to become a State
        and also face possibility of losing status as UN members until they comply to minimum standards of being civilized.
        The only problem will this is the UN was established when we had the Soviet Union- a criminal State.
        So get with the times, The Wall has been torn down. It doesn’t mean
        Russia is now lovely, but since they moved ahead, why can’t UN
        get it’s act together?

      • Peter Lang | November 3, 2013 at 5:04 am |

        GaryM

        Don’t get me wrong, I believe the west should maintain and expand a free market, even to un-free countries, on principle and for humanitarian reasons. I just do not see it as something that will free most of those other countries, at least not in our lifetimes.

        I think we are on the same wave length, but I think you may have missed a key point from my earlier comments, regarding time scales.

        I am not suggesting all countries will become mature democracies at the same time and in the next couple of decades. But the evidence of the last century is that all are improving (see GapMinder for UN stats). The process will almost certainly continue but at different rates for different countries and different regions. Asia is going fast at the moment, South and Central America will also progress as Africa will eventually too.

        My time scale is based on the Tol (2013) Figure 1 which shows GW is good for most of this century with maximum net benefit at around 1 to 1.5 C warming and occurring around mid century. The net benefit is about 2.4% of global GDP. That’s huge. Rational people should want the warming and be thinking about how to address the threat of greater warming in the second half of the century if the evidence becomes more firm that negative impacts of greater GW beyond mid century is a significant risk. I suggested we can have the benefits to about mid century then effectively cut emissions substantially over a few decades (2040 to 2070). But we need to start now (I explained the time scale in an earlier comment).

        The rate that countries are improving their governance (all are different stages and running at different rates) and the rate that freer trade is progressing all fits with the time scale I am talking about.

        By the way, if we do move to nuclear on the time scale I referred to in my earlier comment, then we’ll get the benefits of warming and remove the single largest cost of warming beyond 2050 – energy costs. See Tol (2011) Figure 3: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf . If we have cheap energy, GW is net beneficial for all this century and to beyond 4 C of warming according to Figure 3. In my mind we can have cheap energy, so GW will be net beneficial for all this century. Study Figure 3, especially the energy cost curve, to understand what I am getting at.

        I welcome further discussion on this because, I reckon this in important and well worth continuing to debate.

    • Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 5:48 pm |

      Richard Tol (2013) estimates that global warming is likely to be net positive up to about 2.2 C increase above current global average temperature, with maximum benefit at about 1 C to 1.5 C increase from today (Figure 1 here: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps37-2012-tol.pdf&site=24). We would not want to miss the benefits, so, ideally we would capture the benefits and avoid the net costs that might come with the currently projected higher temperatures late this century.

      Below I suggest how we might gain the benefits of moderate warming in the near term and greatly reduce GHG emissions in mid century (to reduce risk of excessive warming in the longer term). If we start now, we can ramp up to reduce emissions from fossil fuels rapidly between 2040 and 2060.

      Small modular nuclear power plants could replace coal for electricity generation by 2045, most fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050 and a significant proportion of fossil fuels used for heating and transport by 2060.

      If nuclear replaced coal it would reduce global CO2 emissions by 15 Gt/a in 2045, which would reduce emissions from fossil fuel by 30% below the projected emissions in 2045.

      It would also cut fine particulate and toxic emissions from fossil fuel plants and avoid about a million fatalities per year by 2045 (compared with continuing to use coal for electricity generation).

      At the rate of 10% cost reduction per doubling of installed capacity, the wholesale cost of electricity from small modular nuclear plants would reduce to half that of coal fired electricity in Australia by 2040. The advantage would likely be even greater in most other countries.

      The lower cost electricity would enable electricity to replace some gas for heating and enable low GHG emissions liquid fuels (for transport) to be produced more cheaply than from fossil fuels, and with no resource constraints (e.g. synfuel from sea water http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/).

      Lower cost electricity would enable electricity to be rolled out more quickly to the 1.2 billion people who are still without access to electricity worldwide. This would avoid about 100 fatalities per TWh, or perhaps another million lives per year. It would also reduce black carbon emissions, a significant cause of human caused global warming.

      Over 1.2 billion people are without access to electricity worldwide. Another 2.8 billion rely on solid fuels for cooking, which resulted in over 3.5 million premature deaths in 2010 due to indoor air pollution.

      http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/overview

      Key Assumptions:

      The main assumption is the roll out rate. The rate assumed here is the capacity of small nuclear power plants is doubled every two years.

      This assumption depends mainly on the rate the cost decreases. For this exercise I assume a 10% reduction in wholesale cost of electricity per doubling of capacity.

      I assume the starting price estimated by the Australian Government for new small modular nuclear plants commissioned in Australia in 2020; i.e. $113/MWh.

      I assume no production capacity constraint. That is, the world can produce and build as many plants as needed to meet world demand .

      So the major constraint is cost and the rate that costs come down. That will be determined by politics, public perception, nuclear paranoia, which in turn will be driven by the activities of the environmental NGOs, Greenies and anti-nuclear activists.

      • Peter Lang | November 3, 2013 at 5:59 am |

        Further to my comment at the head of this sub-thread which included:

        Below I suggest how we might gain the benefits of moderate warming in the near term and greatly reduce GHG emissions in mid century (to reduce risk of excessive warming in the longer term). If we start now, we can ramp up to reduce emissions from fossil fuels rapidly between 2040 and 2060.

        Small modular nuclear power plants could replace coal for electricity generation by 2045, most fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050 and a significant proportion of fossil fuels used for heating and transport by 2060.

        I also said, in that comment, the cost of electricity would be halved by 2040 for a cost reduction rate of 10% per capacity doubling. Some of the other benefits of nuclear are covered, including for heat and transport fuels.

        Now refer to Tol (2011) Figure 3: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

        By far the largest impact of GW after 2040 is the cost of energy. The Increasing cost of energy dominates all other costs and benefits. If not for increasing energy costs, GW would be net beneficial well beyond 2100 and above 4 C increase from now. But the cost of energy will come down as we get over the anti-nuke paranoia (see my earlier comment on this thread). So, from this figure, it would be reasonable to conclude, GW would be net beneficial for this whole century – if the greenies and ‘progressives’ stopped blocking progress and allowed the cost of energy to come down.

        Also see Tol’s carefully worded paragraph explaining why the impacts may be (I’d say probably) overstated: “the researchers who published impact estimates are from a small and close-knit community who may be subject to group-think, peer pressure and self-censoring.” Penultimate paragraph in Section 2 here: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps37-2012-tol.pdf&site=24

    • NW | November 2, 2013 at 5:49 pm |

      “Assist the poorest countries to become richer.”

      I wish we actually had highly reliable knowledge for making that happen. We might have made a little progress since Smith (1776), but it’s not much and it’s not that reliable either.

    • Jim D | November 2, 2013 at 9:39 pm |

      CNN will air Pandora’s Promise next Thursday.
      http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/29/cnn-films-to-air-pandoras-promise-thursday-nov-7/
      This is pro-nuclear for the sake of the environment. Should be interesting.

      • Ragnaar | November 2, 2013 at 9:53 pm |

        From Jim D’s link:

        “Stone tells the intensely personal stories of environmentalists and energy experts who have undergone profound conversions from being passionately against, to strongly favoring nuclear energy – putting their careers and reputations on the line in the process.”

        Always look on the bright side of life.

      • Jim D | November 2, 2013 at 10:11 pm |

        Like I said, should be interesting. I think a good place for nuclear waste would be coal mines (including those that still have coal). Kill two birds with one stone.

      • Vaughan Pratt | November 3, 2013 at 2:21 am |

        That would be Robert Stone?

    • Bob Ludwick | November 3, 2013 at 8:18 am |

      “Cheap, plentiful energy is the key to freedom and prosperity.” Jerry Pournelle, often

      “And vice versa.” Bob Ludwick

      As Jerry’s premise seems to me to be true, prima facie, I would be interested in the explanation by the left (and it is ALWAYS, as with CAGW, the left) as to why EVERY energy policy that they have advocated over the last 50 years or so has had the effect, if not the overt intent, of increasing the cost of energy while reducing its supply. Or, alternately, why Jerry is simply wrong, and rationing energy and making it as expensive as possible is actually good for us.

      Bob Ludwick

      • gbaikie | November 3, 2013 at 10:43 am |

        “As Jerry’s premise seems to me to be true, prima facie, I would be interested in the explanation by the left (and it is ALWAYS, as with CAGW, the left) as to why EVERY energy policy that they have advocated over the last 50 years or so has had the effect, if not the overt intent, of increasing the cost of energy while reducing its supply”

        The final solution involves not having billions and billions of more
        people who are prosperous and consuming a lot more of the world
        desperately limited resources.

        Economic equality is what is needed.

        Everyone gets Obamacare, except the politicians and their friends who did the hard work of passing it into law.

  9. Jim D | November 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm |

    Re-posted in Open Thread.
    WUWT highlight Lewandowsky, Mann et al.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/01/mann-and-lewandowsky-go-psychotic-on-skeptics/#more-96600
    Since even WUWT had a post on this to balance the memeplex one, it may be good if Climate Etc. does. It is definitely part of the Etcetera when they refer to tactics used against them from varying skeptical groups. The abstract is interesting reading. You can ignore Watts huffing and puffing about it.

    • me | November 2, 2013 at 5:36 pm |

      You don’t want to ignore everything Watts has to say, he perfectly illustrates the paper’s point many times over.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 5:42 pm |

      “Since even WUWT had a post on this to balance the memeplex one…”
      ___
      WUWT had its own memeplex to counter the CAGW memeplex. Which virus will win for the hearts and more importantly- minds, of the blogosphere faithful? How viable is the blogosphere in infecting minds with memes? Is the traditional school system, churches, bars & pubs, water cooler, etc. still as viable for meme infection as they used to be in the age of electronic meme distribution?

  11. Joshua | November 2, 2013 at 5:50 pm |

    Ya’ just gotta love Anthony Watts:

    Their tactic is exactly the same thing that went on in communist Soviet Union with dissenters.

    Yes. EXACTLY THE SAME!!11!!!!!!!1

    Keep moving along folks. No memeplexes to see here. Just keep moving.

    • Ted Clayton | November 2, 2013 at 6:12 pm |

      Joshua said;

      Keep moving along folks. No memeplexes to see here [at Watts Up With That]. Just keep moving.

      Not only does WUWT rank far above Climate Etc, but what people do once the go there is a lot better.

      They bounce off less; they look at more things, and spend twice as much time doing it. All of those are regarded as very favorable.

      Watts puts a stack of fresh new posts up online, day after day.

      Watts & his site are doing very well, no doubt about it.

      Ted

      • Joshua | November 2, 2013 at 6:32 pm |

        Ted –

        Not only does WUWT rank far above Climate Etc, but what people do once the go there is a lot better.

        Yes, indeed. You are, no doubt, verifiably correct about that.

        Not only does chocolate ice cream rank far above vanilla ice cream, but what people do with it once they get it is a lot better.

      • Jim D | November 2, 2013 at 6:35 pm |

        Unlike Climate Etc., their comment section on this subject is mostly a denialist echo chamber. I guess they keep themselves entertained at least.

      • Ted Clayton | November 2, 2013 at 7:15 pm |

        Jim D noted;

        Unlike Climate Etc., their comment section on this subject is mostly a denialist echo chamber.

        WUWT used to be better-balanced … and it likely will be, again. They underwent quite an “attack”, for quite awhile. A big front in the ‘war’, was Activist ‘commenters’ going on WUWT, purely to jam ’em.

        So yeah, the Sheriff ended up strapping on the trusty ol’ .45, and a few of the trouble-makers were plugged in the street. The rest were given notice – not to “Get Out” – but that coming in just to bust the place up was no longer tolerated. Deputies were deputized.

        It happens like that, both ways, on both kinds of sites.

        For example, there is too much gratuitous ‘back & forth’, here on Climate Etc, that accomplishes nothing, and aims to accomplish nothing, except to endlessly entertain a small number participants who carry on & on & on & on … just for the pleasure of listening to their face rattle.

        The foolishness here on Dr. Curry’s site, is damaging it. Actually, and really: it has been trending downhill, for some time.

        One day, the nice Doctor is going look soberly into her hotel room dressing-mirror, as she reluctantly retrieves her trusty old authority-sidearm from the bottom drawer, and gets it properly adjusted on her hip.

        She’s going to stroll into her outa-control tavern, and do the same thing that Anthony Watts reluctantly had to do, and the results will be largely the same.

        Or, she can fail to do that, and watch her project gradually become irrelevant.

        Ted

      • PMHinSC | November 3, 2013 at 9:56 am |

        Joshua | November 2, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Said
        “Not only does chocolate ice cream rank far above vanilla ice cream, but what people do with it once they get it is a lot better.”

        According to
        http://www.foodchannel.com/articles/article/the-top-15-most-popular-ice-cream-flavors/
        (Flavor, percent favoring)
        1. Vanilla, 29%
        2. Chocolate, 8.9%

        Of course “far above vanilla ice cream” doesn’t specify far above vanilla in flavor; heck it could mean ah… well I am sure it could mean something else. And I really would like to know what people do with chocolate ice-cream that is a lot better than what they do with vanilla ice cream.
        But we do know that the magic money molecule CO2 did it and not some other molecule; whatever “it” is. CO2 isn’t the “flavor of the month” is it?
        We do know that don’t we?

  12. Burl Henry | November 2, 2013 at 5:59 pm |

    Steve Mosher:

    What is the EVIDENCE that CO2 has actually caused any of the current global warming?

    • Peter Lang | November 2, 2013 at 6:34 pm |

      It’s just ‘the vibes’!

    • Teddi | November 2, 2013 at 6:36 pm |

      Well, when Mosher exhales [and he does that alot] Co2 it does have an effect…

    • Jim Cripwell | November 2, 2013 at 7:04 pm |

      Burl, you write “What is the EVIDENCE that CO2 has actually caused any of the current global warming?”

      Steven can produce all sorts of evidence to show what you ask. What no-one can produce is any EMPIRICAL evidence..

    • Herman Alexander Pope | November 2, 2013 at 7:16 pm |

      No evidence. Only model output and opinion.

    • Pekka Pirilä | November 2, 2013 at 7:24 pm |

      There’ll never be any evidence for those who deny the validity of all evidence. The others have seen very much evidence including all estimates of TCR or climate sensitivity.

      • Burl Henry | November 2, 2013 at 8:35 pm |

        I wonder if you could cite some of “The very much evidence that others have seen” So far, it has escaped me.

      • k scott denison | November 3, 2013 at 12:29 pm |

        Pekka Pirilä | November 2, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Reply
        There’ll never be any evidence for those who deny the validity of all evidence. The others have seen very much evidence including all estimates of TCR or climate sensitivity.
        =========
        What an odd statement. I would say there is a food chance that evidence might be found if the impact of CO2 is a great as hypothesized. To me the challenge is simply this:

        1. There is experimental evidence, collected in a laboratory in glassware (basically) that CO2 absorbs radiation at certain wavelengths.
        2. There is conjecture/assertions by the likes of Mosher and many others that the rate of absorption measured in the lab is the same as measured in the open atmosphere.
        3. There are few (no?) experiments that measure the effect of CO2 in a simulated atmosphere on a scale larger than, say, a fe cubic feet.
        4. As a chemical engineer, whose job was to model chemical reactions in order to scale them up to plant size, I know from experience that what one measures at lab scale rarely (never) applies at large scale. That’s why one does scale up experiments (physical) and modeling, validating and refining the model at every stage.
        5. Why “climate science” thinks one can go from 1 to 2 without going via 3 is either: a) naive, b) ignorant, c) arrogant, or, d) deliberate (in an attempt to gain funding without having to do the very hard work of physical experimentation).

        Me, my reading of the situation leads me to think it is a combination of a), c) and d). My primary evidence is the hubris of individuals, many on this blog, who believe with absolute certainty that CO2 is THE cause of climate change. That over confidence is clear evidence, to me, of emperors who aren’t wearing any clothes.

        So please, Pekka, tell me I’m wrong and show me the plethora of scale up experiments that have been done.

      • Pekka Pirilä | November 3, 2013 at 1:07 pm |

        K Scott Denison,

        If you don’t know why we can be sure that going from (1) to (2) can be done, I propose that you learn a little more about gases and interaction of gas molecules with radiation. I’m surprised that a chemical engineer is ignorant of that, but evidently it’s possible.

        If we could not trust that much in physics, our technology would be really far from what it is now.

        You could also spend some time in figuring out, what have been the original applications for which early radiative transfers codes were developed by the air force, and why the air force is even now one of the main users of those codes. These codes are based on the same laboratory measurements. Do you think that the air force has verified the applicability of those codes in real atmosphere or not?

      • kim | November 3, 2013 at 1:10 pm |

        Meh, the Air Force isn’t using them to understand climate, that huge analog heat engine.
        ==========

      • k scott denison | November 3, 2013 at 5:21 pm |

        Thanks for confirming my suspicions Pekka. Looks like d) is the leading cause. Noticeably absent from you ad hom reply was any evidence of how scale climate experiments have been done.

        You should be so proud to go along with your smugness. You are now neck and neck with Mosher for most smug on the thread.

        You assert that sceptics will never believe any evidence, I supply the requirement for what I would believe, and you attack me personally as a reply.

        Well played. Put me right in my place.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 8:28 pm |

      Pekka said:

      “There’ll never be any evidence for those who deny the validity of all evidence.”
      ___
      Their memeplex won’t allow it through. Too much cognitive dissonance.

      • kim | November 3, 2013 at 10:04 am |

        There is great hope in Paleo. So what do we get? Cherry-picked paleo to demonstrate elevator-like recent temperature rises to snow hoi polloi and slay the skeptic dragon. On closer examination, this cherry-picked Paleo doesn’t prove attribution for any recent temperature rise, but does prove the cognitive dissonance rife in climate science today.
        ===============

      • k scott denison | November 3, 2013 at 5:24 pm |

        Gates: please show me one experiment (physical) at larger than laboratory scale that demonstrate that CO2 does what you assert it does. You know, one where the infamous “all else being equal IS held equal” (per Mosher) and proves the properties as measured in the lab. Then show me the repeated experiment where all things aren’t held equal and tell me the result.

        Then we will have a start on understand what role CO2 plays.

        Or won’t your skepticism allow for such experiments?

  13. Teddi | November 2, 2013 at 6:32 pm |

    “Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland back up theories that support the Sun’s importance in determining the climate on Earth. In a paper published this month by the American Meteorological Society, the authors demolish the claims by IPCC scientists that the Sun couldn’t be responsible for major shifts in climate. In a post on her website this month, Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, all-but mocked the IPCC assertions that solar variations don’t matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited: the National Research Council’s recent report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” and NASA, former home of global warming guru James Hansen.”

    http://www.thegwpf.org/lawrence-solomon-global-cooling-consensus/

    ———————–

    I submit that if you turn off the Sun, all life dies – period. To think that the Sun does not drive climate is the most stupid assumption that could be made by so-called scientists. This whole man-made blame game is idiotic and agenda driven.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 6:47 pm |

      Teddi erroneously surmises:

      “I submit that if you turn off the Sun, all life dies – period.”
      _____
      I take it you mean on Earth, and the answer is no, probably not. The oceans would of course freeze over rather quickly and all moisture would be condensed from the atmosphere. We be back to Ice Planet Earth very rapidly. Yes, all surface life would die, but under the thick sea ice, the oceans would actually be doing pretty well. Yes, much of the larger life forms would die, but the oceans would stay warm and liquid by being insulated by the very thick sea ice. At this juncture, the geothermal heat coming from the interior of the Earth would be all that is left to keep the oceans warm. It is quite possible that it would be enough to heat the oceans for tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of years and some form of life would exist by the geothermal vents in the deepest parts of the ocean. This is not unlike what may already exist on the frozen ice moons in other parts of our solar system, so far from our sun that it barely makes any difference to them at all in terms of heat.

      • Mike Flynn | November 2, 2013 at 7:18 pm |

        R Gates,

        Notwithstanding that animal and plant life as we know it would die out in the absence of light, (no photosynthesis any more, and it’s effect on the food chain), I am impressed that you admit the interior heat source of the Earth would keep the abyssal depths at least, at a temperature above freezing.

        In addition, the ground presently overlaid by several kilometers of ice would presumably remain the same, temperature-wise.

        What do you calculate the average temperature of the exterior of the Earth to be in the absence of Sunlight? The average Warmist would immediately say 288K – 33K = 255K, or well below freezing.

        You are not stupid, obviously. So maybe 33K due to “global warming” is incorrect?

        I await your response with interest.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • GaryM | November 2, 2013 at 7:31 pm |

        R. Gates,

        So who is measuring how much heat/energy is currently being emitted to the deep ocean from the interior of the Earth? Does it fluctuate at all? How do we know? And what impact does that have on the supposed measurements of heat/energy from AGW that is reportedly being found there as an increase in ocean heat content?

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 7:58 pm |

        Mike Flynn asks:

        “What do you calculate the average temperature of the exterior of the Earth to be in the absence of Sunlight?”
        ____
        Well, of course the temperature at the interior of the Earth has very little to do with the presence of the Sun or the energy streaming from that body to the Earth. The geothermal energy is quite independent of sunlight. The latest estimates are that the interior of the Earth is very similar (or even slightly hotter) than the surface of the Sun, coming somewhere around 6000C whereas the surface of the Sun is around 5600C. Of course the interior of the Sun is much much much hotter at many millions of degrees, but once you’re over a million or so, it’s just too hot to care anymore and you just want to sit in the shade and sip on a cold beer.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 8:04 pm |

        Remember, the oceans will only keep in the geothermal heat with the protective insulation of the sea ice (that would probably form to many tens of meters thick all the way to the equator). The sea ice would provide a very nice barrier to heat escaping from the oceans. With the interior of the Earth coming in at about 6000C, this would heat the oceans nicely for many millions of years, and the oceans should be thriving with life. We may well discover the first life on another world on one of the large frozen moons that have a thick layer of water ice. Under them, life could be quite abundant. Oh the things our grandchildren may come to know!

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 8:08 pm |

        Gary asks:

        “R. Gates,

        So who is measuring how much heat/energy is currently being emitted to the deep ocean from the interior of the Earth? Does it fluctuate at all? How do we know? And what impact does that have on the supposed measurements of heat/energy from AGW that is reportedly being found there as an increase in ocean heat content?

        ____
        All great questions. I am not very familiar with geothermal measurements in the ocean depths in general, but considering how difficult such measurements would be and my quick Google searach on the topic, I am going to guess that measurements are sparse and any “data” you’d find would be very rough “guesstimates”.

      • Mike Flynn | November 2, 2013 at 8:12 pm |

        R Gates,

        You must have got diverted.

        I repeat the question : –

        “What do you calculate the average temperature of the exterior of the Earth to be in the absence of Sunlight?”

        Your post relating to this question doesn’t seem to contain an answer. If you don’t know the answer, just say so. There’s no shame demonstrating a lack of knowledge. Attempting to avoid the question, while giving the impression it’s beneath your dignity to provide an answer, merely reinforces the belief that you refuse to acknowledge facts.

        When I find new facts, I change my opinion. What do you do? The answer seems obvious.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 8:26 pm |

        ““What do you calculate the average temperature of the exterior of the Earth to be in the absence of Sunlight?””
        _____
        Oh, sorry, I read “interior”, as the exterior question needs a bit more refining. What part of the exterior of the Earth are you talking about? right on the thick ice that would form? 2 meters above the ice? I think overall it is a pretty uninteresting question as the surface in general would cool to close that of intersteller space, maybe slightly higher. The atmosphere would be gone, or so slight to be unimportant and only a very little geothermal energy would make it up through the thick ice that covered both land and sea. Pretty hellishly cold above that ice, but rather nice (relatively) for the creatures under the sea ice or deep inside caves under the ground.

      • Mike Flynn | November 2, 2013 at 9:23 pm |

        R Gates,

        Just for the sake of argument, use the surface. I know for a Warmist, this is a moveable feast, but assume the solid or liquid surfaces most distant from the center.

        Your assumption that “surface” temperatures would be very close to those of interstellar space is nonsensical. You obviously cannot do the calculation. Just for laughs, use a median R value for granite, make an assumption about the average size and temperature of the core, and away you go.

        Fourier and Kelvin worked backwards to establish the age of the Earth. Even though they were wrong, their workings were reasonable. Do the calculation, and then tell me again that the surface would be just above 4K or so. Even Pluto’s surface temperature is estimated to be around 50K or so.

        So, not even close.

        Your defence that it is an uninteresting question shows your inability to answer, no more no less. I can sympathise with your desire to avoid anything that might cause you to question your Warmist religious beliefs.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 11:48 pm |

        Mike Flynn said:

        “Even Pluto’s surface temperature is estimated to be around 50K or so.”
        ____
        The question would be, what what Pluto’s surface temperature be floating in interstellar space, not proximal to any star (the sun is gone, remember?) Do you think it would still be 50K?

        Your analysis using Pluto is extremely flawed, because even at it’s remote distance from the Sun, Pluto still gets energy at its surface from the Sun:

        “The variations in temperature are slight, but they can have significant effects. Pluto is made up of a rocky core surrounded by ices of various gases. When the distance to Pluto from the sun is at a minimum, temperatures are warm enough for the ices to sublimate directly into gas, creating a thin atmosphere. As Pluto moves away from the sun, the gases re-freeze and the planet’s atmosphere disappears from view.

        Source: http://www.space.com/18563-pluto-temperature.html

        You’re an idiot Mike Flynn.

      • Jim D | November 3, 2013 at 12:04 am |

        50 K is consistent with Pluto’s distance from the Sun. T^4 goes as 1/r^2, so T^2 goes as 1/r. The distance is 40 times Earth’s so the temperature should be about 1/6, which fits 50 K, but you have to allow for albedo difference, global average T, etc.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 3, 2013 at 12:13 am |

        Thanks for that Jim D, but the issue is, how could would the surface of the Earth or Pluto be without any sun around at all– i.e. both are cast out into interstellar space. Earth would be the fortunate one as at least the frozen ocean surface would keep some liquid water unneath and probably some simple life forms as well. Mike Flynn was erroneously trying to compare the surface of Pluto with a sun, to the surface of the Earth without. A nonsensical comparison.

      • Mike Flynn | November 3, 2013 at 1:09 am |

        Jim D,

        You may be able to achieve what R Gates cannot.

        Using the assumptions in my other responses, calculate the Earth’s surface temperature without external heating, if you wish. My own calculations indicate a much higher figure than 5K.

        The calculations of Fourier and Kelvin may be instructive.

        R Gates keeps changing the subject. As I am undoubtedly more intelligent than he, his characterisation of me as an idiot clearly indicates his intellectual level.

        Subservient and mindless religious fervour may provide the solace he so obviously craves. I wish him well.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • gbaikie | November 3, 2013 at 1:19 am |

        -“Even Pluto’s surface temperature is estimated to be around 50K or so.”
        ____
        The question would be, what what Pluto’s surface temperature be floating in interstellar space, not proximal to any star (the sun is gone, remember?) Do you think it would still be 50K? –

        It’s thought reasonable that when Pluto got closest to the sun
        it’s atmosphere will increase. Atmosphere gets warmer/bigger.
        But the Sun from Pluto is essential a really big star.

        “Under normal atmospheric pressure, nitrogen can exist as a liquid between the temperatures of 63 K and 77.2 K
        (-346°F and -320.44°F). Below 63 K, nitrogen freezes and becomes a solid. Above 77.2 K, nitrogen boils and becomes a gas.”

        A key part is under normal pressure- in more vacuum conditions
        you can lower temperature N2 gas. So need some pressure to have
        liquid, otherwise it’s solid or gas.
        It seems Pluto’s surface will be a solid unless there is enough gas.
        Under the ice, it seems could be liquid and such liquid can’t be colder
        than 63 K [it would ice or it’s got some impurities which lower it’s melting point.
        The size difference between Pluto and Charon is small, prompting
        people to want to call a binary planetary body [a dwarf binary planetary body, since Pluto was demoted to dwarf status]
        So:
        Pluto: 13.05 ± 0.07 (×10^21 kg)
        Charon: 1.52 ± 0.06 (×10^21 kg)
        So Charon is less than 1/10th of Pluto mass.
        Our Moon is about 1/80th of Earth mass [and though as big as Pluto
        it’s much further from Earth compared to Pluto and Charon.

        Because both Pluto and Charon are thought to be tidally locked
        with each other, there isn’t considered to be the tidal heat due to
        rotation. But also Pluto has been discovered to have more moons:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Pluto
        These moons are suppose orbit around the common gravitational point
        of both Pluto and Charon [their barycenter]. These moon may also be tidally lock, there has to be difference in their rotation.
        Now these moons are tiny but all of them are much closer to Pluto
        than our moon.
        So Nix and Hydra are < 0.002 (×10^21 kg)
        So much smaller than Moon is to Earth, as Nix and Hydra are to Charon but they are much closer.
        Anyways, don't know if anyone figure out any of this tidal heating.
        So people do assume that Pluto has liquid ocean.
        Oh,wait:
        "Styx, Nix, Kerberos and Hydra form a 1:3:4:5:6 sequence of near resonances with the Charon–Pluto orbital period:[9] Styx is about 5.4% from resonance, Nix is within 2.7% of resonance, Kerberos is apparently within 0.6%, whereas Hydra is within 0.3%, though none appear to be in an exact resonance. It may be that these orbits originated as forced resonances when Charon was tidally boosted into its current geosynchronous orbit, and then released from resonance as Charon's orbital eccentricity was tidally damped. Today the Pluto–Charon pair continue to produce strong tidal forces, with the gravitational field at the outer moons varying by 15% peak to peak."
        So seems there is varying tidal force.
        But anyhow it's assumed there could be liquid ocean. Which may resulting from radioactive heat and/or tidal heat. But we could get more info when Hew Horizon gets there in 2015.

      • Vaughan Pratt | November 3, 2013 at 3:12 am |

        If Earth were removed from the solar system and cast into deep space, its effective temperature would fall to about 35 K, and would be sustained at that level by radioactive decay in its interior, assuming a flow from that source to the radiating surface of 0.085 W/m2. You can verify this by multiplying 0.35^4 by 5.67 to obtain 0.085 W/m2. There would be no greenhouse effect because all greenhouse gases would freeze and fall to the ground. For that matter so would the other main gases of the atmosphere.

      • Mike Flynn | November 3, 2013 at 6:14 am |

        Vaughan Pratt,

        I used slightly different assumptions, and calculate a slightly higher temperature.

        No matter. Other commenters completely ignore e=mc^2, it would seem.

        Interesting, considering the number of times I mentioned Fourier and Kelvin, and their ultimately incorrect conclusions.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • gbaikie | November 3, 2013 at 8:17 pm |

        “Vaughan Pratt | November 3, 2013 at 3:12 am |

        If Earth were removed from the solar system and cast into deep space, its effective temperature would fall to about 35 K, and would be sustained at that level by radioactive decay in its interior, assuming a flow from that source to the radiating surface of 0.085 W/m2. You can verify this by multiplying 0.35^4 by 5.67 to obtain 0.085 W/m2. There would be no greenhouse effect because all greenhouse gases would freeze and fall to the ground. For that matter so would the other main gases of the atmosphere.”

        “The average ‘heat flow’ through the earth’s crust is about 87 milliWatts per square metre of the surface (87mW/m2).”
        http://www.kuthenergy.com/geothermal_energy/
        But also say:
        “The amount of heat flow in the earth is not uniform. Beneath oceans, the average heat flow is about 101 mW/m2; beneath continents the value is about 65 mw/m2”

        So considering 70% of surface is ocean. And 101 times .7 plus
        65 times .3 is 90.2 mw/m2. So difference:
        0.087 W/m2
        0.085 W/m2
        0.090 W/m2
        Anyhow around 30 K is the coldest surface on the moon- in polar regions
        in dark crater which have not have sunlight reach them for millions of years

        “Diviner has recorded minimum daytime brightness temperatures in portions of these craters of less than -397 degrees Fahrenheit,” said David Paige, Diviner’s principal investigator and a UCLA professor of planetary science. “These super-cold brightness temperatures are, to our knowledge, among the lowest that have been measured anywhere in the solar system, including the surface of Pluto.”
        http://www.space.com/7311-moon-craters-coldest-place-solar-system.html

        Though compared to geological activity of Earth one could say the Moon is dead. Some outgassing, and small core which somewhere around 1000 degrees. Whereas Earth is molten rock with thin veneer
        of surface rock [roughly 100 km thick]. Earth being one of the most volcanic active body that we know of in our solar system. With perhaps Io being considered more volcanic.

        “Hundreds of millions of miles from the sun, volcanoes on Jupiter’s moon Io sizzle at the highest recorded surface temperatures of any planetary body in the solar system. Planetary scientists from University of Arizona, Brown University and five other institutions report this finding in the cover story of the July 3 issue of the weekly journal Science.”
        http://brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/1998-99/98-001.html

        So Earth without the sun could have it’s average surface around 30 K,
        but in vacuum of space it seems it would have thin atmosphere of nitrogen. With current atmosphere of Nitrogen most frozen.
        We have large amount nitrogen in our atmosphere, somewhere around 42 feet if frozen. Or more 50 feet if include the oxygen [and about 1 foot of argon and ,02 inches of CO2].
        The amount nitrogen could considered to rather insignificant. So it could somewhere around amount atmosphere as Mars. Mars has
        about 2.5 x 10^16 kg. Or about 25 trillion tonnes of mostly CO2.
        So Earth could have somewhere around tens of trillion of tonnes of mostly N2, making earth atmosphere easily unbreathable without person having a pressure suit.
        If someone was in a spacesuit there would so little atmosphere that despite the gas being around 30 K, it would not have any effect in terms making the person cold. One probably need heated boots and gloves if walking on the ground and touching anything.
        It seems one could find volcanic regions which could out gas things like H20 and CO2 [which also would impurity in the atmosphere- and like Mars very cold thin and atmosphere there still H20 in the atmosphere- it like Mars in the there is about 20 ppm of H20. Or near volcanic areas H20 could be around 20 ppm with average atmosphere
        similar methane on earth [1.8 ppm].
        But if were to go down some deep mining caves, one should find much warmer conditions [though still mostly vacuum in term of atmosphere].

    • Mike Flynn | November 2, 2013 at 11:58 pm |

      R Gates,

      From your reference : –
      “At its coolest, temperatures can fall to minus 387 degrees F (minus 233 C).”

      But that is not the point, is it?

      You are terrified to attempt the calculation that I have set, because you know it won’t give the answer you would like.

      Not my fault, sorry.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 3, 2013 at 12:08 am |

        No reply from you Mike Flynn on your completely erroneous attempt to talk about what the surface temperature of Pluto is with a sun present, and compare it to the surface of Earth without a sun?

        Overall Mike Flynn, exactly what point are you trying to make, anyway? If you didn’t use erroneous numbers and comparison I might be able to follow you. If the sun disappeared the surface of the Earth, because we have water, would freeze into Ice Planet Earth. There would no longer be any atmosphere at all, or a very very thin one at best, as even CO2 would condence out. So maybe a little geothermal heat makes its way up through the ice–certainly a tiny bit would. Who cares?

      • Teddi | November 3, 2013 at 10:15 am |

        R Gates called me erroneous and you an idiot. All warmers must go to the same Mann school of etiquette.

      • Vaughan Pratt | November 4, 2013 at 3:54 pm |

        So does that make you the pot or the kettle?

  14. jim2 | November 2, 2013 at 7:46 pm |

    “Michael Hiltzik writes in the LA Times that you’d think the one place you can depend on for verifiable facts is science but a few years ago, scientists at Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology and found only six could be proved valid.”

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/10/28/0322241/how-to-better-verify-scientific-research

  15. jim2 | November 2, 2013 at 7:48 pm |

    Southwestern’s eighth test in the play, the Sharp 22-22-1 #1 which is a vertical well located in Union Parish, Louisiana (map below), was completed with 3 stages at the end of July and has achieved a peak 24-hour production rate of approximately 600 barrels of condensate and 1.3 MMcf of 1,240-Btu gas per day, or over 800 Boe/d. After 88 days, the well is currently producing approximately 530 barrels of oil and 1.1 million cubic feet of gas per day on a 16/64-inch choke. The company commented that “the Sharp well has shown a flattening production profile, which is promising.” This is the company’s best well in the play to date.
    …
    According to Southwestern, the Sharp well, which was drilled in the high-pressure part of the play, cost $10 million to drill and complete. (“It had some issues that we had on the drilling side, and we also had a lot of science,” commented Steven Mueller, the company’s CEO.) In its completion design which continues to evolve, Southwestern used resin-coated proppant and cross-linked gel and accessed the entire Brown Dense interval, which is about 450 feet thick in this well. Southwestern estimates that at $10 million, this well is still above the 1.3 Present Value/Investment ratio that the company uses as the economic hurdle.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1799842-brown-dense-oil-play-southwesterns-persistence-rewarded

  16. jim2 | November 2, 2013 at 7:49 pm |

    Chen Lin, author of What is Chen Buying? What Is Chen Selling?, goes wherever he sees returns. In the summer, he bought mining stocks when the yellow metal hit $1,200 per ounce. Now, he’s trading in his gold names and moving into the fracking space after a three-year hiatus. In this interview with The Energy Report, Lin names the companies he’s buying to play a likely energy sector bottom and tells investors to actively manage their portfolios in the coming stock-picker’s market.

    The Energy Report: Chen, welcome. What is your take on the international prospects for drilling in 2014?

    Chen Lin: Actually, the most exciting development for me is closer to home. I think the major action is in the U.S. and Canada. The whole fracking revolution is picking up steam. We could see as much as a 1 million barrel per day [1 MMbbl/d] increase in North American oil production! The United States is finally inching closer to energy independence, which could have a profound impact on the world.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1797022-why-chen-lin-is-buying-fracking-stocks-and-selling-gold-holdings

  17. Mike Flynn | November 2, 2013 at 7:51 pm |

    Science? at work?

    Re the “Mpemba effect” – noted by Aristotle as “antiperistasis”, and later dismissed out of hand by the “consensus” of physicists.

    “Earlier, Dr Osborne, a professor of physics, had visited Mpemba’s high school. Mpemba had asked him to explain why hot water would freeze before cold water. Dr Osborne said that he could not think of any explanation, but would try the experiment later. When back in his laboratory, he asked a young technician to test Mpemba’s claim. The technician later reported that the hot water froze first, and said “But we’ll keep on repeating the experiment until we get the right result.” However, repeated tests gave the same result, and in 1969 Mpemba and Osborne wrote up their results . . . ”

    The technician’s remarks are representative of current scientific thought.

    While you are laughing, think back to the experiments you did in school. You recorded the temperature of a beaker of water as it cooled at certain intervals of time, transposed the results to graph paper, and then the teachers instructions to “join the points making a smooth curve.”

    It’s obvious it “should” be a curve, right? Just as it’s obvious that hot water cannot possibly freeze quicker than cold water, right?

    And this is the way we are taught from kindergarten. Make the data fit the curve, rather than ask why the data sometimes obstinately refuses to comply.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 8:15 pm |

      It is always the exceptions to the rules that advance science and knowledge. A real skeptic always looks for that which does NOT confirm their provisionally held truths.

      • Mike Flynn | November 2, 2013 at 8:32 pm |

        R Gates,

        Commonly said, but untrue just the same. If a rule has exceptions, it is no longer a rule. In any case, I take your point.

        Here’s one definition of a skeptic ; –

        1. a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
        synonyms: cynic, doubter, questioner, scoffer;

        More : a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist.
        synonyms: agnostic
        antonyms: believer

        I seem to fit the definition. Yourself?

        Or like the average Wild and Woolly Warmist, (Warrior or not), do you redefine the word to suit your thinking?

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 8:46 pm |

        Mike Flynn,

        Knowledge cannot advance if the exception is not found. It is only in breaking the old rules that new rules will found to replace them. Such is the evolution of the collective human memeplex.

        My own personal approach is the question everything, so skepticism is a tool for me, not some badge I wear or a reason to doubt everything. Some would take it to a kind of social club. Once I find a provisional truth that seems hard to refute, I’ll hold it as such– a provisional truth. Hence, I’m a “warmist” and think it is more likely than not that the human carbon volcano is having more than a trivial impact on Earth’s energy balance.

      • Mike Flynn | November 2, 2013 at 9:50 pm |

        R Gates,

        Do you really think that your opinion on something as vague as a “human carbon volcano” should count for anything in any assemblage of rational persons?

        Combining it with pseudo-scientific misdirection by referring to “the Earth’s energy balance”, demonstrates a high level of gullibility rather than any rational scepticism.

        I will leave you alone with your fantasy. Enjoy it.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | November 2, 2013 at 10:45 pm |

        Mike Flynn said to R. Gates:

        “Do you really think that your opinion on something as vague as a “human carbon volcano”?
        ___
        Vague? Really Mike, even you must have the simple visualization skills to see the tons of carbon collectively spewing out of exhaust pipes, vents, smokestacks, etc. all over the world, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. C’mon Mike…you can see it if you try. This collectively represents billions of tons of carbon being transferred from lithosphere to atmosphere– exactly how a natural volcano operates, only a different composition of fumes and on a much larger scale. It really started when humans first discovered fire, but that was small potatoes compared to what happened with the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

        Really Mike…even denialists such as you must have some kind of visualization skill.

      • Vaughan Pratt | November 3, 2013 at 3:27 am |

        A small volume of water will freeze faster than a large volume.

        If you try freezing equal volumes of hot and cold water, the hot water will evaporate faster than the cold water. if the pans they’re in are sufficiently shallow, what remains of the initially hot water will then freeze faster. If however they’re deep then not enough of the hot water will have evaporated before the cold water freezes.

        Another cooling advantage enjoyed by the hot water is that if the pans are sitting on ice, the hot pan will melt enough of the ice to improve the thermal contact with the ice and so cool faster. As with the previous mechanism this effect is stronger with shallow pans.

      • Mike Flynn | November 3, 2013 at 6:16 am |

        Vaughan Pratt,

        Equal volumes, identical containers.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

  18. pokerguy | November 2, 2013 at 7:54 pm |

    Speaking of fraud, bad faith, and abuse of power, check out the story behind TWA’s flight 800. FBI and NTSB covered up an obvious missile attack, likely to save the U.S. Military from embarrassment and disgrace…

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/the-missiles-that-brought-down-twa-flight-800.html

    http://nypost.com/2013/07/17/documentary-raises-questions-about-doomed-twa-flight-800/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/arts/television/twa-flight-800-examines-a-1996-tragedy.html?_r=0

    • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 12:35 am |

      Seriously?

      I mean to say that there are unanswered questions would be one thing (I really have no idea) – but you’re saying, with complete confidence, that “an obvious missile attack” was “covered up?”

      Do you watch Alex Jones, PG?

      • pokerguy | November 3, 2013 at 7:32 am |

        Josh, It’s called contempt before investigation, something you’re often guilty of. If you’re interested, check it out. Then get back to me. I’m afraid I don’t know who Alex Jones is. How is he relevant?

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 7:53 am |

        PG –

        It’s called knowing that a “cover up” on that massive a scale would be extremely difficult to pull off, and would be highly improbable. It’s called knowing that there might be unanswered questions, but that there is a very, very high bar needed to be as certain as you are about a massive “cover up” of an “obvious missile attack.”

        I looked briefly at the links you provided. They described some unanswered questions.

        Did they provide enough evidence to be so confidence about a massive “coverup” of an “obvious missile attack.” I don’t think so. In fact, I’d say that to think so is pretty funny.

        Google Alex Jones. The relevancy is obvious.

  19. jim2 | November 2, 2013 at 8:17 pm |

    …
    In the Delaware Basin, the firm highlighted three horizontal wells in its October 30 conference call. Peer Concho (CXO) considers the Southern Delaware Basin an emerging play for its goals and has results from Reeves County (see presentations in link above). Two Energen Southern Delaware Basin results were noted below from the call. The well Bodacious is considered a record setter in terms of 24-hour IP:

    1) Ward County, University 25-17 #1H:

    Peak 24-hour IP (3 stream): 1,079 boepd (70% oil)
    Peak 30-day Avg (3 stream): 769 boepd (65% oil)
    4,000′ Lateral length: slick water stimulation with 17 frac stages.

    2) Reeves County: Bodacious C7-19 #1H (record setting well)

    Peak 24-hour IP (3 stream): 2,229 boepd (62% oil)
    Peak 30-day Avg (3 stream): 1,671 boepd (61% oil)
    4,500′ lateral length: slick water stimulation with 19 frac stages

    Energen considers development in the Delaware as “early days.” One focus of management is to drive down well costs, an aspiration of all shale developers.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1788572-e-p-firm-energen-taps-permian-basin-prospects-plus-a-mega-well

  20. mkantor | November 2, 2013 at 8:19 pm |

    Ah, much better place. Apologies (a) for first posting in the wrong place and/or (b) if it is too long.

    Yesterday, President Obama issued an Executive Order (full text available here – http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/01/executive-order-preparing-united-states-impacts-climate-change) establishing a Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience “to advise the Administration on how the Federal Government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change.” The Executive Order further directs US federal agencies to “Modernize Federal programs to support climate-resilient investments,” “Manage lands and waters for climate preparedness and resilience,” “Provide information, data and tools for climate change preparedness and resilience,” and “Plan for climate change related risk.” To implement these actions, the Executive Order also establishes an interagency Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience comprised of all relevant Federal agencies and led by White House staff.

    The accompanying Fact Sheet has details (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/01/fact-sheet-executive-order-climate-preparedness). The full Fact Sheet follows below. Stop here if you do not wish to read the entire Fact Sheet!

    For Immediate Release
    November 01, 2013
    FACT SHEET: Executive Order on Climate Preparedness

    President Obama Establishes a Task Force on Climate

    “We’re going to need to get prepared. And that’s why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid. States and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready… And we’ll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm barriers.” – President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013

    Today, President Obama established a Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience to advise the Administration on how the Federal Government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change. The Task Force members include state, local and tribal leaders from across the country who will use their first-hand experiences in building climate preparedness and resilience in their communities to inform their recommendations to the Administration.

    The President signed an Executive Order that directs Federal agencies to take a series of steps to make it easier for American communities to strengthen their resilience to extreme weather and prepare for other impacts of climate change.

    President Obama has said that we have a moral obligation to our children and future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted or damaged. That is why in June, the President launched a Climate Action Plan to cut carbon pollution, prepare communities for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to address this global challenge. The Climate Action Plan recognizes that even as we act to curb the carbon pollution that is driving climate change, we must also improve our ability to prepare for the climate impacts we are already seeing across the country. Across America, states, cities, and communities are taking steps to protect themselves from extreme weather and other climate impacts by updating building codes, adjusting the way they manage natural resources, investing in more resilient infrastructure, and planning for rapid recovery from damages that nonetheless occur.

    The Federal Government has an important role to play in supporting community-based preparedness and resilience efforts by establishing policies and prioritizing investments that promote preparedness, protecting critical infrastructure and public resources, supporting science and research needed to prepare for climate impacts, and ensuring that Federal operations and facilities continue to protect and serve citizens in a changing climate.

    State, Local and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience

    State, local and tribal leaders across the country are already contending with more frequent or severe heat waves, droughts, wildfires, storms and floods, and other impacts of climate change. The Task Force will provide recommendations to the President on removing barriers to resilient investments, modernizing Federal grant and loan programs to better support local efforts, and developing the information and tools they need to prepare.

    Task Force members comprise governors, mayors, county officials and tribal leaders, representing a diverse range of communities. The members of the Task Force include:

    State Officials:

    Governor Neil Abercrombie (HI)

    Governor Jerry Brown (CA)

    Governor Eddie Calvo (GU)

    Governor Jay Inslee (WA)

    Governor Jack Markell (DE)

    Governor Martin O’Malley (MD)

    Governor Pat Quinn (IL)

    Governor Peter Shumlin (VT)

    Local Officials:

    Mayor Ralph Becker (Salt Lake City, UT)

    Mayor James Brainard (Carmel, IN)

    Commissioner Paula Brooks (Franklin County, OH)

    Supervisor Salud Carbajal (Santa Barbara County, CA)

    Mayor Frank Cownie (Des Moines, IA)

    Mayor Bob Dixson (Greensburg, KS)

    Mayor Eric Garcetti (Los Angeles, CA)

    Mayor George Heartwell (Grand Rapids, MI)

    Mayor Kristin Jacobs (Broward County, FL)

    Mayor Kevin Johnson (Sacramento, CA)

    Mayor Michael Nutter (Philadelphia, PA)

    Mayor Annise Parker (Houston, TX)

    Mayor Patsy Parker (Perdido Beach, AL)

    Mayor Madeline Rogero (Knoxville, TN)

    Mayor Karen Weitkunat (Fort Collins, CO)

    Mayor Dawn Zimmer (Hoboken, NJ)

    Tribal Officials:

    Karen Diver, Chairwoman, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (MN)

    Reggie Joule, Mayor, Northwest Arctic Borough (AK)

    An Executive Order to Protect Our Communities

    The Obama Administration has taken significant steps to strengthen the climate resilience of America’s communities and economy. More than 30 Federal agencies developed their first-ever Climate Change Adaptation Plans, outlining strategies to protect their operations, programs, and investments to better serve communities and safeguard our public resources in the face of climate change. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the Administration has provided resources to rebuild the affected area to be more resilient than before, including support for more climate-resilient roads and infrastructure, and projects that protect drinking water and buffer communities from flooding. In addition, Federal agencies have partnered with states, cities, tribes, and the private sector to develop strategies to address the impacts of climate change on our freshwater resources, oceans and coasts, and wildlife. Agencies have also built new, data-driven tools to help decision makers and resource managers map and plan for future sea level rise. From Florida to Minnesota, and from Alaska to New York, Federal agencies have partnered with communities to provide funding and technical assistance to address local climate impacts such as sea level rise, flooding, and water scarcity.

    To build on this progress, the Executive Order (E.O.) “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change,” signed today directs Federal agencies to:

    Modernize Federal programs to support climate-resilient investments: Agencies will examine their policies and programs and find ways to make it easier for cities and towns to build smarter and stronger. Agencies will identify and remove any barriers to resilience-focused actions and investments– for example, policies that encourage communities to rebuild to past standards after disasters instead of to stronger standards – including through agency grants, technical assistance, and other programs in sectors from transportation and water management to conservation and disaster relief.
    Manage lands and waters for climate preparedness and resilience: America’s natural resources are critical to our Nation’s economy, health and quality of life. The E.O. directs agencies to identify changes that must be made to land- and water-related policies, programs, and regulations to strengthen the climate resilience of our watersheds, natural resources, and ecosystems, and the communities and economies that depend on them. Federal agencies will also evaluate how to better promote natural storm barriers such as dunes and wetlands, as well as how to protect the carbon sequestration benefits of forests and lands to help reduce the carbon pollution that causes climate change.
    Provide information, data and tools for climate change preparedness and resilience: Scientific data and insights are essential to help communities and businesses better understand and manage the risks associated with extreme weather and other impacts of climate change. The E.O. instructs Federal agencies to work together and with information users to develop new climate preparedness tools and information that state, local, and private-sector leaders need to make smart decisions. In keeping with the President’s Open Data initiative, agencies will also make extensive Federal climate data accessible to the public through an easy-to-use online portal.
    Plan for climate change related risk: Recognizing the threat that climate change poses to Federal facilities, operations and programs, the E.O. builds on the first-ever set of Federal agency adaptation plans released earlier this year and directs Federal agencies to develop and implement strategies to evaluate and address their most significant climate change related risks.

    To implement these actions, the E.O. establishes an interagency Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, chaired by the White House and composed of more than 25 agencies. To assist in achieving the goals of the E.O., these agencies are directed to consider the recommendations of the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience

    • Bob Ludwick | November 3, 2013 at 9:49 am |

      The money quote:

      “MANAGE LANDS AND WATERS for climate preparedness and resilience: America’s natural resources are critical to our Nation’s economy, health and quality of life. The E.O. directs agencies to IDENTIFY CHANGES THAT MUST BE MADE TO LAND- AND WATER-RELATED POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS to strengthen the climate resilience of our watersheds, natural resources, and ecosystems, and the communities and economies that depend on them.”

      And so we achieve the purpose for which CAGW was invented: to ‘manage’ the lands and waters. Which, with ‘managing’ our health care, ‘ensuring our security’, and ‘fighting drugs’ pretty much means that the the government has assumed control over everything and everybody. For the children, of course.

      Bob Ludwick

  21. jim2 | November 2, 2013 at 9:10 pm |

    Hosted by Climate Journalist and adventurer Bernice Notenboom, Tipping Points embraces commentary from leading climate scientists surveying the complexity of the major tipping points effecting our current climate and their impact on changing weather patterns around the globe.

    Adventurous and informative, Tipping Points explores the interconnectedness of all the elements that make up our climate system that influence global and local weather patterns. The Earth is in a delicate equilibrium; once one factor reaches its respective tipping point the other factors will also breach stability. As the atmosphere heats up and the chemical makeup of the atmosphere shifts there will be repercussions felt on a global scale. These elements are what Bernice and her team of climate authorities are going to explore is some of the most remote locations on the planet.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/10/16/the-weather-channels-new-series-on-climate-tipping-points/

  22. Jim D | November 2, 2013 at 9:16 pm |

    Apparently the IPCC WG2 report has just been leaked. I won’t link it but it is easy to find. This is the one that puts the C in CAGW, if AR4 is anything to go by.

  23. Girma | November 2, 2013 at 9:37 pm |

    IPCC AR4:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4.html#box-6-2

    Ice core records show that atmospheric CO2 varied in the range of 180 to 300 ppm over the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 650 kyr (Figure 6.3; Petit et al., 1999; Siegenthaler et al., 2005a). The quantitative and mechanistic explanation of these CO2 variations remains one of the major unsolved questions in climate research.

    CO2 is more soluble in colder than in warmer waters; therefore, changes in surface and deep ocean temperature have the potential to alter atmospheric CO2.

    IPCC AR1:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_1990_and_1992_Assessments/English/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_overview.pdf

    Measurements from ice cores going back 160,000 years show that the Earth’s temperature closely paralleled the amount of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere.

    The human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are much smaller [3%] than the natural exchange rates of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the oceans, and between the atmosphere and the terrestrial system.

  25. Girma | November 2, 2013 at 10:37 pm |

    How To Better Verify Scientific Research

    “Michael Hiltzik writes in the LA Times that you’d think the one place you can depend on for verifiable facts is science but a few years ago, scientists at Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology and found only six could be proved valid. ‘The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they’re investigated further,’ says Michael Eisen who adds that the drive to land a paper in a top journal encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn’t a safeguard because the unpaid reviewers seldom have the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws. ‘The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims,’ Eisen says. ‘And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having splashy papers in Science or Nature — it’s not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it’s gotten a lot of attention.’ That’s why the National Institutes of Health has launched a project to remake its researchers’ approach to publication. Its new PubMed Commons system allows qualified scientists to post ongoing comments about published papers. The goal is to wean scientists from the idea that a cursory, one-time peer review is enough to validate a research study, and substitute a process of continuing scrutiny, so that poor research can be identified quickly and good research can be picked out of the crowd and find a wider audience. ‘The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole,’ says Hiltzik. ‘NIH and the rest of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to get back on the right path.'”

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/10/28/0322241/how-to-better-verify-scientific-research

    • Hank Zentgraf | November 3, 2013 at 9:15 am |

      I wonder how many journalists are aware of the “softness” in the scientific journal review process? Is there a market for a scientific publication that publishes papers two at a time with opposing scientific conclusions?

  26. Wagathon | November 3, 2013 at 12:05 am |

    Too bad Michael Mann was too morally ambitious and anti-American or instead of a ‘hockey stick’ he might have graphed a springboard whereby America might draw on respect for individual liberty and personal achievement to shoot for the moon and fall among the stars.

  27. David Wojick | November 3, 2013 at 7:01 am |

    It is amusing yet sad to see that memeplex is now being used as a term of denigration by both sides. Amusing because it trivializes the concept, which is probably not what Andy wanted, but which he clearly drove to. Sad because memeplex research is actually rather interesting mathematically as far as the spread of ideas is concerned. I myself have used a disease model to study the diffusion of scientific ideas. This does not make science a disease. By the same token memeplex math does not make the contagion under study irrational. All ideas, good or bad, spread by contagion.

    • Harold | November 3, 2013 at 12:29 pm |

      And the internet is to memes what the airplane is to diseases. The spread of both is turned up to 11.

  28. Peter Lang | November 3, 2013 at 7:12 am |

    With cheap energy, GW would be net positive for all this century and beyond according to Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

    Flatten the red line and the total of the other items (storms, agriculture, water, sea levels, health and ecosystems) is positive for all this century and up to and beyond 4 C warming.

    So all we have to do to solve the AGW issue is to allow cheap energy.

  29. Alexander Biggs | November 3, 2013 at 7:27 am |

    The:current research and interest in heat transfer in the depths of the oceans will increase the use of this in climate models. I have used it in my theoretical climate model : http://members.iinet.net.au/~alexandergbiggs/an alternate theory of climate change 3.jpg

    • Jim Cripwell | November 3, 2013 at 7:39 am |

      I read this, and I hope Marcia Wyatt read it too. Her criticism was very similar, but she made a few minor, factual errors, was criticised harshly by Miller and was forced to apologise. This is, surely, vindication.

    • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 8:10 am |

      Judith

      Miller seems to specialise in highly speculative conjecture centred on proxies that appear as controversial as tree rings.

      Having now read some more of his work-including one on the Little Ice age that is speculation personified-I will be somewhat more sceptical of his confident assertions in future.
      tonyb

    • Louise | November 3, 2013 at 8:11 am |

      There are some comments on Easterbrook’s article here http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/anthony-watts-promotes-denier-don.html

      and some musings on Miller’s paper here http://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/unprecedented-skeptic-flypaper/

      • zentgraf2 | November 3, 2013 at 9:28 am |

        I started to read your referenced paper, but stopped when I encountered disrespectful language. Authors who have the evidence on their side don’t have to use pejorative language.

      • Louise | November 3, 2013 at 10:29 am |

        zentgraf – sure, Anthony Watts always takes such a respectful line doesn’t he?

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 3, 2013 at 11:54 am |

        This dude Don Easterbrook doesn’t know how to write scientifically-objective research papers. Here is a quote from one of his recent works:

        ”
        The lame excuse that sulfur emissions during the cool period caused the cooling is not credible because the cool period came to an abrupt halt in 1977 with no change in atmospheric sulfur or CO2
        .”

        This was in an apparently scholarly text called “Evidence-based Climate Science”. According to Easterbrook, applying objective evidence is to refer to something as a “lame excuse”.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 12:10 pm |

        Web

        The ‘paper’ by Don appears to be actually a book

        http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-Based-Climate-Science-Opposing-Emissions/dp/0123859565#reader_0123859565

        It was published by the highly respected Elsevier press. One must assume that different criteria are used when publishing a non peer reviewed book compared to a peer reviewed paper. If the former I suppose its a matter of style, if the latter I would expect more scientific phrasing than you cite. It would jar with me.
        tonyb

      • kim | November 3, 2013 at 12:30 pm |

        Yup, ‘fudge factor’ would be way more scientific than ‘lame excuse’.
        ============

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 3, 2013 at 1:25 pm |

        This “book” was evidently a compilation of articles edited by Easterbrook.
        This makes it the equivalent of a journal, since the articles could have been reprints from other journals. The fact that all the articles in the volume seem to have been written by Easterbrook makes it a little suspect.

        Perhaps this was supposed to be an encyclopedia of “Evidence based Climate Science” where one should find an editor exercising control over the different entries written by different authors. But if all the entries were all written by Easterbrook, why does he list himself as a mere editor?

        What a bizarre piece of junk writing.

      • Tonyb | November 3, 2013 at 1:35 pm |

        Web

        Yes, I was confused as to why don was an editor when there didn’t seem to be any articles contributed by a named author.

        It’s certainly an oddity, what makes it odder is that it should be published by elsevier

        Tonyb

  31. curryja | November 3, 2013 at 7:33 am |

    Mike Smith points to an interesting article in the New Scientist on solar cooling
    http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2013/11/yet-another-sun-to-cause-cooling.html?spref=tw

    • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 7:56 am |

      Really?

      http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/watt-about-another-maunder-minimum/

      I guess that depends on how you define “interesting.”

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 8:03 am |

        Well, I take it back.

        The article he points to is interesting.

        So then the question remains, what adjective would you use to describe the following?:

        If we accept Dr. Lockwood’s assessment, then greenhouse gasses would become a very good thing — preventing the mass starvation associated with major cooling!

        Using “Lockwood’s assessment” to argue that “greenhouse gases would become a very good thing?” Really?

        Dreck comes to mind. Any others, Judith?

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 8:21 am |

        er. Drecky.

      • kim | November 3, 2013 at 9:27 am |

        Heh, the Human Carbon Cornucopia. The plants thank you for all the molecules.
        ========

      • jim2 | November 3, 2013 at 9:49 am |

        Lockwood,
        Joshua,
        Cognitive Dissonance

    • manacker | November 3, 2013 at 8:06 am |

      Judith Curry

      Interesting article.

      The change in Lockwood’s “probability” estimate for a “grand minimum” is interesting.

      If the projected possible “grand minimum” really ends up being a repeat of the Maunder Minimum (and the concurrent depth of the LIA) we might see a similar longer-term cold spell.

      History has shown us that prolonged cold periods are much worse for humanity than prolonged warmer periods, so I’m hoping we do not have another “grand minimum” anytime soon.

      The good news is that this next “cold snap” may start at a bit higher temperature than the last one, so may not get quite as cold. And we have modern technology today, which will keep it from becoming as disastrous for humanity as the last one.

      But it will raise the question of how much of the 20thC warming was caused by the 20thC “grand maximum” (apparently highest level of solar activity for several thousand years), rather than by AGW.

      And it will also help refocus climate research off of just the CAGW scare.

      Max

      • Peter Davies | November 3, 2013 at 9:41 am |

        Joshua has always struck me as an AGW agnostic and nothing he has ever said has indicated what he thinks about that hypothesis.

        I have long considered that the AGW hypothesis has not been demonstrated, either by the models nor by current data.

    • manacker | November 3, 2013 at 8:14 am |

      Joshua

      You seem to ignore the historical fact that humanity has fared worse during prolonged cold periods than during warmer ones (crop failures, food shortages, famines, social upheaval and wars)

      Even today we know that more people by far die as a result of cold weather than from warm weather.

      So (if they are really having a significant effect, which is anything but certain) increased greenhouse gas levels could help ease the pain of a possible imminent solar minimum..

      Crank up that SUV, Joshua, and rejoice!

      Max

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 8:26 am |

        max –

        This comes from the author of the paper that the New Scientist article is in response to:

        http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/solar-activity-and-the-so-called-%E2%80%9Clittle-ice-age%E2%80%9D/

        It is “skeptical” nonsense like your comment above that gives skepticism a bad name, max.

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 8:29 am |

        max:

        Compare and contrast:

        You

        You seem to ignore the historical fact that humanity has fared worse during prolonged cold periods than during warmer ones (crop failures, food shortages, famines, social upheaval and wars)

        The scientist who is studying the phenomenon you are discussing:

        So what do we think the effect of a return to Maunder minimum conditions on global mean temperatures would be? The answer is very little

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 8:38 am |

        max:

        You might consider taking off your “skeptic”-colored glasses and reading this, also:

        http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/10/28/lockwood-hudson-beeb-maunder-sigh/

        A very interesting situation w/r/t the rhetorical games that “skeptics” play, don’t you think?

        This reminds me of my all-time favorite, when “skeptics” where arguing that Mojib Latif predicts “global cooling.” This nonsense is never-ending.

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | November 3, 2013 at 8:58 am |

        That was an excellent link Joshua, thanks for sharing!

      • pokerguy | November 3, 2013 at 9:09 am |

        Josh,
        Re your link, I have no idea whether a grand solar minimum will cause a cool down. I certainly hope not, in the way we human beings hope for things, as if such hoping can have any impact on an uncaring universe…

        But WRT to rhetorical games: I find it telling that you refuse to acknowledge the way warmists play these games….

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 9:17 am |

        Both sides play the games, PG. Of course they do, and I have never “refuse[d] to acknowledge” such.

        Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, etc., lead to such games, and I don’t think that there is any asymmetry in magnitude in the different camps on the respective sides of the climate wars. I have said that over and over. Consider why, despite having read me say that over and over, it hasn’t been incorporated into your opinions about what I do and don’t say.

        Interesting, isn’t it?

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | November 3, 2013 at 9:19 am |

        Indeed, for all of those, who would like to twist Lookwood’s words to suit their own needs, here’s his actual words that are exceptionally clear about what the implications are if we do in fact see another Maunder type Minimum:

        “In a paper with scientists from the Met Office’s Hadley Centre, we used an energy balance model to show the slowing in anthropogenic global warming associated with decline in solar irradiance to Maunder minimum levels.

        We found the likely reduction in warming by 2100 would be between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we’re due to experience as a result of human activity. Other scientists such as Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf from Potsdam, Germany had reached very similar conclusions.”

      • curryja | November 3, 2013 at 9:28 am |

        This of course assumes that these energy balance climate models include all of the relevant processes linking solar variations to climate, which they almost certainly do not.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 9:39 am |

        RGates

        We seem to be beguiled by this notion of a ‘global average temperature’-i.e. one which does not reflect the actual temperature at any one time in any real world place

        We are also beguiled by the paleo proxies which due to their 50 year centring do not pick up the natural variability, which means temperatures see saw far more than these studies show.

        Put the two together and we are somewhat divorced from the reality as to what would happen in real countries/regions should a maunder minimum type event occur-that is to say that temperatures dropped again to the same degree as they did then (whatever the reasons were)

        I wrote about it here.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/

        So, many-but not all parts of the world, would experience a very sharp drop in temperatures which would have a very serious impact on everything from farming to commerce.

        The sharp drop in temperatures can be clearly seen in various figures in the article. The paleo proxies missed out on practically every major change in the climate

        figure 1 of my above referenced article which uses CET, is a good reference point as it is considered a reasonable proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Who says so apart from me and the dozen scientists I quoted in the Long Slow Thaw? The Met Office themselves do, who I met last week to discuss this very matter-that of using CET as a wider proxy.

        Is another Maunder type event likely? I have no idea, but we should not dismiss the consequences if we should suffer once again those historic declines in temperature. It is also worth pointing out that the end of the Maunder Minimum saw the sharpest upwards hockey stick in CET’s long history.
        tonyb

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | November 3, 2013 at 9:40 am |

        Judith,

        Of course they do not– but that’s not the point. The point is about others intentionally twisting Lockwood’s words and findings, to irresponsibly suggest that even if we have another Maunder Minimum, the world will be plunged into another little “Ice Age”, a term he also quite understandably disdains.

      • kim | November 3, 2013 at 9:48 am |

        A mechanism, my Kingdom for a mechanism. Well, somebody’s Kingdom, anyway.
        ============

      • manacker | November 3, 2013 at 9:53 am |

        Joshua

        Yeah. I had read that 2012 paper.

        The one cited by Judith is actually an update with more recent findings and a higher stated probability of a new grand solar minimum like the Maunder Minimum, which helped usher in the coldest years of the global LIA.

        But, of course, only time will tell what really happens to the global climate over the next several decades.

        I honestly hope we have continued slight warming, as we did over the second half of the 20thC, rather than cooling, but no one can predict what will really happen, despite the IPCC attempts to frighten us with hokum “crystal ball” scenarios like its most recent RCP8.5 “worst case, business-as-usual, high-coal, high forcing, high-end climate change” case leading to 3.7C warming by 2100.

        The point here is that IF a new grand solar minimum can result in net cooling of a few tenths of a degree (despite unabated human GHG emissions), then the net warming of the 20thC can likely also partly be attributed to the grand solar maximum of the 20thC.

        It all points to a lower 2xCO2 climate sensitivity that the mean estimate predicted by the IPCC climate models in AR4 or AR5, and hence less global warming by 2100 resulting from increased GHG concentrations.

        And this should all be good news to you, Joshua.

        Right?

        Max

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | November 3, 2013 at 9:54 am |

        Tony,

        I do not discount at all the inability of SOME proxies to show the full range of variability, but much higher resolution proxies are available and more very exciting ones coming. Also, I do not discount the severe effects that the “LIA” had on certain parts of the world for certain periods of time, nor does Lockwood. But there is a great deal of hyperbole in certain groups suggesting a much more severe global cooling related to a Maunder Minimum than is justified. The volcanic aerosol part of the equation in terms of the cooling from 1250-1850 seems to be completely left out of the “sun does it all” group, and that’s unfortunate.

      • pokerguy | November 3, 2013 at 9:59 am |

        “interesting, isn’t it?”

        Josh,
        I was referring to your repeated refusal to answer my question on a recent thread, preferring instead to tiresomely invoke Godwin.

        As to tribalism etc., I can’t resist adding that I’m one of the few here who can demonstrate a relatively open mind, since I’m one of the few who’ve changed it on the subject of AGW. Of course there are others, though when it happens it’s almost always in the direction of skepticism.

        What do you make of that? All I can think of in the other direction, are one or two faux conversions along the lines of Professor Muller.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 10:08 am |

        RGates said

        ‘But there is a great deal of hyperbole in certain groups suggesting a much more severe global cooling related to a Maunder Minimum than is justified. The volcanic aerosol part of the equation in terms of the cooling from 1250-1850 seems to be completely left out of the “sun does it all” group, and that’s unfortunate.’

        Than is justified? A Maunder minimum type event affecting substantial parts-but not all-the world could affect Billions of people. That’s pretty serious.

        As regards The 1250 -1850 comment. As I develop my own database I an am growing increasingly sceptical of the notion that volcanic aerosols have the long lasting effect claimed. I posted you data relating to Mann’s 1257/8 volcano hype that illustrated the conditions he stated actually predated the volcano by a decade and temperatures returned to ‘normal’ within a year of it.. I see Giff Miller claims that four volcanos around 1280 pitched us into the Little Ice age but can see little evidence for this.

        Of course, observations are merely ‘anecdotal’ and should take a distant second place to those reliable scientific instruments comprising of bits of dead trees and fragments of dead moss.
        tonyb

      • Joshua | November 3, 2013 at 10:35 am |

        max:

        So here’s what I find interesting. You say this:

        The point here is that IF a new grand solar minimum can result in net cooling of a few tenths of a degree (despite unabated human GHG emissions), then the net warming of the 20thC can likely also partly be attributed to the grand solar maximum of the 20thC.

        And the author of the article(s) in question says this:

        However, the decline should do much to end the debate about the fraction of global warming that can be attributed to solar change. For the first time since about 1900, long-term solar and anthropogenic trends are now in opposite directions.

        Yet while you think I should be “alarmed” about a new ice age resulting from the solar minimum, the author thinks that any effect on global temps will be minimal.

        Like sands in the hourglass, so are the days of our lives…As the climate war world turns…, eh max?

      • R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | November 3, 2013 at 11:18 am |

        Tony, no doubt there will be some effects from Maunder Minimum, but I think you are exaggerating their likely severity. Further, I think your discounting the volcanic aerosol effects during the 1250-1850 period is quite short-sighted. Everyday billions of people go without access to enough food or access to a reliable clean drinking water. That’s real life. The “new ice age is coming” hyperbole is a bit of fiction and trying to hold Lockwood’s statements up as proof of that is something both he resents and all rational people should.

      • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 11:43 am |

        R Gates

        Are you replying to me as I didn’t really say anything like what you have just recounted?

        I have never said a new ice age is coming. Personally I think it unlikely.

        What I was trying to put over was that it is a fact that the Maunder Minimum caused great hardship. IF (note the word ‘IF’) it recurred to the same extent to a world (or part of a world) geared towards warming rather than cooling it will have considerable impact on our lives for example Farming and heating costs to name but two sectors.

        I am unclear as to the point you make about going without food or water. I never mentioned that.

        As regards aerosols, I have not ‘discounted’ them, I am merely saying that it is difficult to see that they have a long last8ng effect. The more serious volcanos appear to have an impact for a season or more, but their effects don’t appear to last decades according to the contemporary observations.

        If you have access to credible research that confirms this long lasting impact that overrides observations please cite it.

        P.S Moss is less credible than for example an entry in the accounts of Exeter Cathedral that confirms that money was paid to the poor on account of the extreme severity of the season. It coincides with Laki.

        tonyb

  32. pokerguy | November 3, 2013 at 8:21 am |

    Watch the eclipse….”Slooh’s show will feature commentary from Cox as well as astronomer Bob Berman, documentary filmmaker Duncan Copp and other guests. Viewers can email questions in advance to coxy@slooh.com, or tweet questions to the panel during the broadcast using the Twitter hashtag #solareclipse. The eclipse should reach totality at Lake Turkana around 9:25 a.m. ET.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/watch-sundays-strange-solar-eclipse-east-coast-online-8C11509922

  33. Harold | November 3, 2013 at 9:52 am |

    Perfect description of the “green energy” space cadets.

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/10/government-is-magic.html

    “These are the people who love Freakonomics, who enjoy all sorts of mental puzzles, who like to see an idea turned on its head, but who couldn’t fix a toaster.”

  34. AK | November 3, 2013 at 9:57 am |

    Leaked Climate Change Report Predicts Violent, Poorer, Sicker Future

    I just went to check the weather and found this, I haven’t checked to see if anyone else has posted it.

    • kim | November 3, 2013 at 10:08 am |

      They don’t know what they are asking for. Warmer will sustain more total life and more diversity of life; colder will lead to a more violent, poorer,and sicker future. How did this memeplex get itself so backward?
      =================

      • manacker | November 3, 2013 at 10:48 am |

        kim

        It’s useless to look for any logic here – there is none.

        It’s classical fear mongering gone wild.

        Sounds like the wild-eyed, foamy-mouthed “repent now or die!” prophets we’ve all heard of, but very few of us were gullible enough to believe.

        As the French say: “il ne faut pas chercher à comprendre”.

        Max

    • Bob Ludwick | November 3, 2013 at 12:20 pm |

      As do I, AK.

      Of course the violence, poverty, and ill health will have nothing to do with the actual weather, but with the policies implemented to control it.

      I have always said that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming posed an existential threat to western civilization. For those who doubt it, wait until we begin to experience the ‘benefits’ from Obama’s most recent Executive Order.

      Bob Ludwick

  35. manacker | November 3, 2013 at 10:32 am |

    Joshua

    No one (as far as I know) is suggesting a return to the conditions of the LIA, as described here, as a result of a possible new grand solar minimum.
    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

    First of all, we are starting off around 0.5-0.8C warmer than in the late 16th and early 17thC, prior to the Maunder Minimum
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

    Then we have advanced in technology, largely as a result of the ready availability of low-cost energy, so we are no longer as exposed to the effects of bitter winters, lower crop yields and harsher climate as we were 400 years ago.

    Whether or not Lockwood’s projections of the global temperature impact of a return to another Maunder Minimum are correct, it is clear that even a relatively small amount of extended net cooling despite unabated human GHG emissions (as we’ve already witnessed over the past decade) would raise serious questions regarding the 3C mean value of 2xCO2 ECS as predicted by the models cited by IPCC.

    This would simply point to a greater solar role in the 20thC warming, resulting from the 20thC grand solar maximum, than assumed by IPCC.

    And that is the main “take-home” here, Joshua, not a “new LIA scare tactic”.

    Let’s leave the fear mongering to IPCC and the CAGW crowd.

    Max

    • manacker | November 3, 2013 at 10:39 am |

      Joshua

      Speaking of classical fear mongering, here is the lead-in of the report cited by AK above:

      Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

      Yikes!

      Sounds Biblical. Sin and retribution at its goriest.

      But fortunately it’s all BS.

      Max

      • captdallas 0.8 or less | November 3, 2013 at 10:47 am |

        Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

        Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as the world population increases, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

        Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as the world cools from man-made climate change, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

        Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as Nuclear technology proliferates, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

        Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as rap music proliferates, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

        Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as genetically modified crop use increases, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

        Starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease already lead to human tragedies. They’re likely to worsen as ____________, a leaked draft of an international scientific report forecasts.

      • Harold | November 3, 2013 at 10:55 am |

  36. Lars P. | November 3, 2013 at 11:31 am |

    “It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.”

    Lars P: How about the modeling feedback?

    ” Over the past two decades, the climate modeling community has increasingly interlinked the dual objectives of advancing scientific understanding of the climate system and providing actionable projections for decision makers.

    Arguments are provided that climate models are inadequate for both of these objectives and that the current path of climate model development is unlikely to significantly improve this situation.

    It is argued that the power and authority that is accumulating around GCMs and the expended resources, if continued, could be detrimental to both scientific progress and policy applications. ”
    ————————————————————
    Lars P: Thanks for putting things clear. This goes somehow in antagonism to what the meeting websites tells:
    From the meeting website:

    “Climate models influence our understanding of climate change, its causes and its future. They are a central technology of climate science. ”
    ————————————————————

    Lars P: To my limited understanding current climate models do share a major flaw in not modeling properly the vertical column of air, the net heat transfer through it and thus introducing fake artifacts (non existing hot spot) and have a warming bias.
    Unless this major flaw is being addressed climate modeling will continue to hinder the development of climate science instead of helping it.

    A new paradigm is needed for climate models, the current one is flawed.

  37. A fan of *MORE* discourse | November 3, 2013 at 11:35 am |

    Judith Curry remarks “Easterbrook has a harshly critical post on Millers’ Arctic study at WUWT”

    Thank you Judith Curry, for helping Climate Etc readers to appreciate Don Easterbrook’s ludicrously erroneous and egregiously incompetent critical essay!


    Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology     posts
    Man with one graph
    declares war on mosses
    (more on Miller et al 2013)

    Miller et al’s (2013) study on very old dead moss emerging from beneath ice caps on Baffin Island, indicating unusual warming, must have touched a nerve with the so-called climate skeptics.

    I’ve previously shown that attempts by Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre to denounce this paper were flawed.

    Today it is the turn of ex-geologist Don Easterbrook to bring out his one graph and embarrass himself. He does it with aplomb.

     […] Easterbrook is simply unfamiliar with the literature, and does not care …

     […] Easterbrook has either not read or not understood the Supplementary Online Materials …

     […] If Easterbrook want to contest the maximum thickness of the icecap, he needs to engage with the methods the authors used rather than arguing from personal incredulity …

     […] Easterbrook’s analogy is painfully flawed and divorced from any understanding of how icecaps respond to climate. …

     […] Summary  Easterbrook’s post is a mix of nonsense and ignorance, garnished with his one graph.

    Lesson-Learned  A good path to an appreciation of strong rational climate-change skepticism is to systematically deconstruct weak and/or irrational climate-change skepticism.

    Thank you for encouraging Climate Etc readers to thoroughly deconstruct weak and/or irrational climate-change skepticism, Judith Curry!

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

  38. pokerguy | November 3, 2013 at 11:45 am |

    “Don Easterbrook’s ludicrously erroneous and egregiously incompetent critical essay!”

    Mornin’, Fan. Meh. Generally in writing, less is more. I submit for your consideration that you probably would have been better leaving out the adverbs. “Don Easterbrook’s erroneous and incompetent critical essay!”
    would be better. Moreover (I try to use the word at least once a day), “erroneous” and “incompetent” encroach on one another’s territory.
    So you could cut one or the other. Truthfully though, I find both a little awkward in this context.

    Sunday morning. Time on my hands. Sorry.

  39. A fan of *MORE* discourse | November 3, 2013 at 11:48 am |

    BREAKING NEWS

    Scientists say nuclear power needed
    to slow anthropic climate-change

    Some of the world’s top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won’t be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they’re asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.

    Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades.

    That isn’t realistic, the letter said.

    “Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough” to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and “with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology” that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.

    The letter signers are

    • James Hansen, former NASA scientist;
    • Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution;
    • Kerry Emanuel, MIT; and
    • Tom Wigley, University of Adelaide.

    The union of “best available climate-science” with common-sense energy economics surely will be welcomed by a broad span of Climate Etc readers!

    Conclusion  Down with planet-destroying Big Cheap Carbon, up with abundant job-creating carbon-neutral energy technologies!

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • rob starkey | November 3, 2013 at 12:11 pm |

      Fan

      Wouldn’t a reasonableness person acknowledge that there is not widespread support for rapidly increasing the number of nuclear power plants by those most fearful of age?

    • AK | November 3, 2013 at 12:35 pm |

      “Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough” to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and “with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology” that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.

      Well, I certainly don’t agree with the first, and I would question whatever expertise they claim WRT technology development.

      But they’re right about the second.

      Down with planet-destroying Big Cheap Carbon, up with abundant job-creating carbon-neutral energy technologies!

      A stupid and simplistic solution. How about “up with Carbon-Negative technology”?

  40. A fan of *MORE* discourse | November 3, 2013 at 12:16 pm |

    UPDATE  Kerry Emanuel posts the full text of the Caldiera/Hansen/Emanuel/Wigley (CHEW) letter

    The CHEW Letter
    (summary excerpts)

    As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems.

    There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

    We understand that today’s nuclear plants are far from perfect. [however] Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels.

    With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions.

    The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century.

    [signed] Caldiera/Hansen/Emanuel/Wigley

    The complete text of the (not-too-long) CHEW letter is recommended reading for Climate Etc readers across the science-to-skeptic spectrum.

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • climatereason | November 3, 2013 at 12:24 pm |

      Fan

      If only you had left it at the reference to the content of the letter I was happy to agree, However, surely Hansen is incorrect to believe emissions are rising faster than ever. They don’t appear to be.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

      Even ‘planet warming’ is debatable.
      Lets agree on the need for nuclear- if other fossil fuels are to be sidelined- as renewables are not as yet up to the job.
      tonyb

      • WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | November 3, 2013 at 1:36 pm |

        “, However, surely Hansen is incorrect to believe emissions are rising faster than ever. They don’t appear to be.
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770”

        This illustrates how the finiteness of fossil fuel resources can critically impact the global economy.

        The pause in emissions observed has to do with the plateauing and decline in high-grade crude oil supplies. It also is partly related to a shift to natural gas, which has less carbon content per energy delivered.

        During this transitory period, we have options to either go after low-grade oil sources such as tar sands and heavy oil, look for other fossil fuels such as coal and unconventional natural gas, or go for alternative energy schemes.

        It really is a Systems challenge that we are facing.

    • Jeffn | November 3, 2013 at 1:21 pm |

      But in the past you’ve asserted that Republicans are to blame for inaction. Are you suggesting it’s somehow or another more complicated than Al Gore and Joe Romm’s assertion that a switch to renewables would be cheap and easy and we merely lack the political will?
      Jeez, what’s next- you gonna claim there might actually be a hiatus from warming or a slowdown in hurricane activity?
      Actually, I only want to know one thing from you, Fan. Given that nuclear power went from zero to 20% of the US energy mix without a carbon tax or international treaty and was single-handedly killed by the Democratic Party. Given that the so-called climate concerned have been studiously rejecting nukes for 20 years while instead insisting that all conferences on the subject be peons to Easterbunny solutions. Given that the vast majority of people you’ve slandered with the “denial” meme would have happily supported expansion of nuclear power.
      When will you issue your apology and begin focusing your ire on the actual proponents of continued fossil fuel use?

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse | November 3, 2013 at 1:40 pm |

        Jeffn, yah must’ve missed my memo where Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all were pretty good middle-of-othe-road Presidents!

        It’s good that you and I are on pretty much the same science-respecting pragmatic-solution page, Jeffn!

        \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

  41. Jim Cripwell | November 3, 2013 at 12:29 pm |

    Towards the beginning of this thread, I find
    @@@@@
    petermartin2001 | November 2, 2013 at 6:20 pm | Reply

    Steven,

    You’re welcome to have a try with Jim but I would say its a waste of time.

    He’s locked into a thought (if that’s the right word for it) train of: 1) experiments on the climate aren’t possible, 2) therefore there is no empirical evidence of any temperature rise caused by human emissions of GH gases 3) therefore there can’t possibly be any problem 4) So, humanity can carry emitting in a business as usual fashion.
    @@@@@

    I responded, showing that Peter was talking nonsense, and putting words in my mouth. Naturally, I have not heard anything in reply. It is typical of warmists when they post anything wrong, that they never admit that they were, in fact, wrong. I feel I deserve an apology.

    • petermartin2001 | November 4, 2013 at 9:41 am |

      “I feel I deserve an apology.”

      Do you? I did notice that you’d conceded that there may be a problem with CO2 emissions. If you’d like to expound on that a little, maybe you’ll get one! You never know!

      • Jim Cripwell | November 4, 2013 at 3:19 pm |

        Quote my words where I have misquoted someone as you have misquoted me, and if I have transgressed, I will apologise.

      • petermartin2001 | November 4, 2013 at 10:51 pm |

        Just on a point of information Jim:
        A quotation is an exact repetition of someone else’s words and is enclosed in quotation marks. ” ” Like this.
        A paraphrase is a restatement of someone’s meaning using different words.
        I would suggest that anyone who may have missed all your first 500 or so comments about ’empirical’ evidence would have seen at least one of the next 500 and would know full well that my paraphrase was an accurate summation of the message you wish to convey.

  42. Bob Ludwick | November 3, 2013 at 12:39 pm |

    @gbaikie

    “The final solution involves not having billions and billions of more
    people who are prosperous and consuming a lot more of the world
    desperately limited resources.

    Economic equality is what is needed.

    Everyone gets Obamacare, except the politicians and their friends who did the hard work of passing it into law.”

    Exactly! Sorta like the Cultural Revolution of 1965-1968 writ large. I guess that when it becomes necessary to reduce the population by 80-95% to reach ‘sustainability’ you gotta start somewhere, so why not reduce the supply of energy worldwide and make it prohibitively expensive. Except for the nomenklatura, of course. And make individual healthcare a government ‘perk’. Or, for troublemakers, a ‘non-perk’ if they persist in irritating the nomenklatura

    Bob Ludwick.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse | November 3, 2013 at 2:06 pm |

      Pick one:

      • “Big Data” Efficient Market Facism
      • “Big Brother” State Fascism
      • Swiss-Style Healthcare (aka Romney/Hilary/Obama)

      Which do you pick Bob Ludwick?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

      • Bob Ludwick | November 3, 2013 at 2:41 pm |

        I pick not being ruled by people who think that the only three choice are, as indicated above, variations of how someone other than myself and my doctor decide what health care I should receive, how much it should cost, and to whom and in what detail it must be reported. And that I should be charged with a crime if my idea of health care does not match theirs–in every detail Why should my employer or the government have anything whatsoever to do with my health care, other than my employer expects me to be able to do the work assigned and the government ensures that my doctor is not a dangerous fraud or that I don’t try to stiff him when billed. Or why should my insurance premiums be taxed if I pay for them myself and not taxed if my employer pays? Don’t tell me! They BOTH should be taxed, right?

        And Swiss sty’e healthcare a la Romney/Hillary/Obama?????????

      • NW | November 4, 2013 at 1:42 am |

        I pick ignoring people who use the word “fascism” lightly.

      • NW | November 4, 2013 at 1:48 am |

        Hey diddle diddle,
        Exclude the middle,
        Make sure every choice is untrue.
        The reasonable laugh to see such dreck,
        And the radical looks like a fool.

      • manacker | November 4, 2013 at 10:08 am |

        Swiss-style health care

        Medical/hospital insurance costs in Switzerland have sky-rocketed since universal health insurance coverage was mandated several years ago.

        Everyone covers own insurance cost (employers are not involved). Insurance is provided by private companies. The Swiss voters voted against a proposed government plan a few years ago.

        Cost depends on whether one just wants basic hospital coverage, private room, on amount of medical deductible, etc. Pharma costs are covered by another plan.

        There is a shortage of general practitioners and some specialists – many doctors come from other counties to practice here.

        The system works and medical care is generally very good here, even if it is expensive.

        Health

    • gbaikie | November 4, 2013 at 2:42 am |

      “NW | November 4, 2013 at 1:42 am |

      I pick ignoring people who use the word “fascism” lightly.”

      What term do you prefer?
      I like Statism.
      I also like the term nanny state.

      I think the problem with word fascism is people forget
      how how attractive fascist leaders were- to the Europeans.
      Though fascism was also quite popular in the US-
      but I think it was more appealing to Americans as solution for
      constant trouble Europe.
      Europe was such a lost cause that many felt desperate for any kind of change.
      And Americans have tended to be too eager for revolutions in
      other countries. No good has ever come from this desire.

    • petermartin2001 | November 4, 2013 at 11:04 pm |

      Bob Ludwick

      Just on a point of information on the way socialised medicine works. Its for anyone and everyone who might need it,

      In the UK even those who have committed terrible crimes and probably don’t deserve it are treated equally with those who do.

      How does it work in the US? If, say, a prisoner who had raped a small child needed life saving surgery in prison, would he get it? Even if he didn’t have any money?

      If he did get it, and if there were no health care scheme for law abiding people who might need the same surgery and who couldn’t afford it either, what would that say about the priorities of the US taxpayer?

  43. jim2 | November 3, 2013 at 8:14 pm |

    It’s great to live in a Communist country. We in the US need a preview of what’s down the road for us.

    ” HAVANA (Reuters) – Cuba closed dozens of home-based movie theaters on Saturday and reaffirmed its plans to end the private sale of imported goods as communist authorities pressed for “order, discipline and obedience” in the growing small business sector.

    A government statement issued through official media said home-based theaters and video games will “stop immediately in any type of self employment,” a local euphemism for small business.

    The statement said “the showing of movies, including in 3D salons, and likewise the organization of computer games, has never been authorized.”

    The government banned the private sale of imported goods last month, a measure that potentially affects some 20,000 small businesses and their employees who sell clothing, hardware and other goods brought in informally by travelers, some of whom visit the Caribbean island regularly carrying merchandise from the United States, Spain and Latin American countries.

    President Raul Castro, who replaced his brother Fidel in 2008, has instituted a series of market-oriented reforms to Cuba’s Soviet style economy where the state still employs 79 percent of the 5 million-strong labor force.

    “These measures are corrections to continue bringing order to this form of management, fight impunity and insist people live up to the law,” the government said on Saturday.”

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cuba-shutters-private-theaters-threatens-other-businesses-030350709–sector.html

    • petermartin2001 | November 4, 2013 at 1:25 am |

      Jim2,

      Yep, you’d better get practising! Let me know if you need the words too!

  44. gbaikie | November 4, 2013 at 6:17 am |

    “The Eltanin impact was an asteroid impact in the southeast Pacific Ocean at the beginning of the Quaternary Period 2.5 million years ago. The location was at the edge of the Bellingshausen Sea 1,500 km (930 mi) southwest of Chile.

    The impact was described in 1981. The evidence was collected in 1965 by the research vessel USNS Eltanin (T-AK-270), after which the impact and asteroid are named
    …
    The area near the Freeden Seamounts over 20,000 km2 (7,700 sq mi) has a meteorite density of 10–60 kg/m2. Of this, 87% is melted and 13% only fragmented. This is the region of the Earth’s surface with the highest density of meteorite material coverage.
    …
    The impacting body, the Eltanin asteroid was between 0.8 and 4 km (0.5 and 2.5 mi) in diameter and traveled with a speed of 20 km/s (12 mi/s). The size of the asteroid can be calculated by the amount of iridium found in the disturbed sediments. ”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eltanin_impact
    And:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeAeGJK1qKA
    And:
    “On the basis of the fallout distribution of the asteroid debris, the authors estimate that the asteroid mass was 2.3×1013g, which corresponds to a diameter of 0.23 km. The estimate is 10 times smaller than one estimated by Kyte et al., but it is close to the realistic situation of the Eltanin impact event, and it is a more reasonable lower-limit estimation on the mass and diameter of the Eltanin asteroid. ”
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PPMtO..18…26S

    Note, I was looking for some simulation of 200 meter impactor in deep ocean, and this sort of what looking for. As it’s lowest estimation given above at being 230 meters.
    Also this occurring 2.5 million ago is rather recent and related to climate issues.

  45. NW | November 4, 2013 at 7:04 pm |

    Hey all you die-hard materialists!

    I just recommended that a journal reject an empirical paper that claimed to find strong empirical support for my one and only theoretical contribution to decision research. Definitely not in my self-interest.

    (But perhaps this so-called error is simply part of my equilibrium strategy in a larger supergame, say the theorists)

  46. Dan Hughes | November 6, 2013 at 4:26 pm |

    Request for Assistance

    Chapter 8 of AR4 WG1
    Climate Models and Their Evaluation

    At the end of the Table of Contents says:

    Supplementary Material
    The following supplementary material is available on CD-ROM and in on-line versions of this report.
    Figures S8.1–S8.15: Model Simulations for Different Climate Variables
    Table S8.1: MAGICC Parameter Values,

    I have seen the same statement in several other documents, but I have not located this material.

    Also, does anyone know if the parameters and ranges used for AR5 WG1 Chapter 9 are online anywhere?

    Thanks